New Study Calls For Recognition of Private Property Claims in Space

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has released a new study by Adjunct Scholar Rand Simberg: Homesteading the Final Frontier: A Practical Proposal for Securing Property Rights in Space. Simberg argues that the U.S. should recognize transferable off-planet land claims under conditions such as those outlined by the proposed Space Settlement Prize Act, which Simberg renames the Space Homesteading Act.

A legal private property regime for real estate on the Moon, Mars, and asteroids could usher in a new era of space exploration at little or no cost to the U.S. government. As the study explains, space is rich in valuable resources. But without off-planet property rights, investors have little incentive to fund space transportation or development.

Simberg proposes that the U.S. begin to recognize off-planet land claims of claimants who

A) establish human settlements on the Moon, Mars, or other bodies in the solar system;

B) provide affordable commercial transportation between the settlement and Earth; and

C) offer land for sale.

www.space-travel.com...

An intriguing proposal, to be sure, but I'm not sure how I feel about this. Although recognizing property rights in space would certainly provide an incentive to the private sector to develop infrastructure on other worlds, it would also allow extremely large corporations to monopolize off world resources without any regulatory oversight. The United States cannot do this unilaterally in any event; only an international treaty can guarantee that these rights will be respected by other nations and private parties that are not based in the United States. A unilateral recognition of extraterrestrial property rights would inevitably lead to legal and, perhaps armed, conflict. Anyone have a strong feeling about this study?

reply to post by DJW001


Oh yeah like we all just have a few trillion dollars lying around to build an unproductive little dome settlement on the moon.
There is sooo much on Earth that still needs to be explored from our oceans, to our forests. Instead of building settlements on the moon why not terraform the deserts and build there?

Originally posted by DJW001
it would also allow extremely large corporations to monopolize off world resources without any regulatory oversight.

Kind of like the largest corporation in the world, the federal U.S. government.

The United States cannot do this unilaterally in any event; only an international treaty can guarantee that these rights will be respected by other nations and private parties that are not based in the United States. A unilateral recognition of extraterrestrial property rights would inevitably lead to legal and, perhaps armed, conflict. Anyone have a strong feeling about this study?

Property rights in space is economic progress, and it's irrelevant whether another country wants to respect property rights in space or not, that's the purpose of defense, whether provided privately or contractually.

I have no doubt that with enough development, asking for the state's permission will be a thing of the past because settlement + homesteading = incentive for security services to be sought.

reply to post by Jace26

Oh yeah like we all just have a few trillion dollars lying around to build an unproductive little dome settlement on the moon.

But some corporations have billions lying around. They wouldn't spend it on an unproductive little dome settlement on the Moon, but they might spend it on a vast, open pit aluminium mine if they could make it profitable by using techniques they wouldn't dare use on Earth. Fusion bomb smelting pits, anyone?

There is sooo much on Earth that still needs to be explored from our oceans, to our forests. Instead of building settlements on the moon why not terraform the deserts and build there?

Exploring the Earth and exploring other planets are not mutually exclusive; we should do both. My concern is that private industry will exploit others planets without regard for the consequences, as they have done on Earth. As for "terraforming" the deserts, it's being done. It's called "Israel."

reply to post by imherejusttoread

Property rights in space is economic progress, and it's irrelevant whether another country wants to respect property rights in space or not, that's the purpose of defense, whether provided privately or contractually.

There are already international treaties that bar nations from claiming property rights in space. They were written at a time when both the treaty and the rights they prohibit were unenforceable. Things have changed. If a legal conflict turns into a military conflict, the results could devastate the global economy.

I have no doubt that with enough development, asking for the state's permission will be a thing of the past because settlement + homesteading = incentive for security services to be sought.

Why do I get the feeling you're planning on going into the Space Mercenary business?

OK I own a shack in Antarctica and if you go there and steal my food my lawyer is going to send you a summons, of course if you stay there to stake claim to my shack, there is no postal service there.

Apparently getting you the message costs more than me paying a lawyer to write it.

If it helps us to expand into space, I am all for it. Better a space resource monopolised by an evil corporation than space resource out of our reach.

But I also do not think this will be enough as an incentive. Surely not at current costs of spaceflight.

reply to post by DJW001


This is a great idea. Better now then after a private company already establishes itself; What a political/legal mess that will be. We need to start building a legal framework around space and non-earth land specifically BEFORE it happens. Now is the right time.

Originally posted by DJW001
Why do I get the feeling you're planning on going into the Space Mercenary business?

I've always admired Adam Strange.

reply to post by indigo21

This is a great idea. Better now then after a private company already establishes itself; What a political/legal mess that will be. We need to start building a legal framework around space and non-earth land specifically BEFORE it happens. Now is the right time.

I agree that we need to start developing a legal framework, but it needs to be done in a fashion that is recognized by all governments. A unilateral extension of private property rights to other planets could be construed as a violation of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, first ratified in 1967.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by DJW001

offer land for sale

Land to which title is not owned but has been taken from the rightful owner (maybe) - Martians, Moon beings, prior Alien claimants, God, some race of which we currently know nothing, etc.

Just who in the hell do the US think they are? It is not theirs to divvy up. Hands off. The Martians do not want freedom and democracy from 30,000 ft.

Titan is hydro-carbon rich. No doubt they are after that then.

reply to post by PuterMan

Land to which title is not owned but has been taken from the rightful owner (maybe) - Martians, Moon beings, prior Alien claimants, God, some race of which we currently know nothing, etc.

I agree that this is a valid consideration. I doubt we'll find Barsoom on Mars, but if there is a preexisting ecosystem, however rudimentary, what right do human beings have to destroy it?

I think everyone is forgetting the more slippery slope question of what gives us the right to claim anything outside of the earth? Is it potential progress yes however it also shows mankinds never ending ego at work.

reply to post by DJW001


Of course. The US could not claim the moon in 1969 because they signed a traity swearing that no nation has the right to possess a celestial body. But now that the Russia does not compete anymore, here they are rewriting the laws.

I think it would be nice if we could get the world to agree to a new revised treaty that would allow for private property in space, but as the world is today, I am not seeing it going through till it become an actual possibility. When it comes down to crunch time the people whose opinions are going to matter will be those who can actually enforce them, and depending on the situation it might be easy time if their interests are in alignment or bad one if they're not.