• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

Property ownership on the moon

Started by memenode, August 23, 2008, 08:42 AM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

memenode

I've just read an interesting article: Space junkies ask 'who owns the moon?'

Apparently there is an "international law" that already answers the question:

QuoteThe Outer Space Treaty, the international law signed by more than 100 countries, states that the moon and other celestial bodies are the province of all mankind.

Same old crap. Of course, I am not surprised. The manking in question is still a predominantly socialist group, in their stupendous urge to boycott their own self in the name of an illusion they call "common good". So long as most people on Earth are this, excuse me for saying, STUPID, no place in space is a safe zone for liberty loving people, unless they build agorist companies who are capable of reaching farther and sooner than anyone else, including world governments.

I personally think that strong property ownership rights apply equally on Earth and anywhere in space - that is, wherever a human can be. To believe otherwise would mean being internally incosistent. I believe that the one who comes to a given place on the moon first, and marks his land, should be the rightful owner of that land. Period.


error

I didn't sign any Outer Space Treaty and I won't.

memenode

Indeed. They purport to be signed in the name of the people, but it's questionable how many of those people actually support that idea.

But, unfortunately, it seems rather too easy to imagine that most humans actually would agree with the sentiment of outer space being owned by all manking at once. They falsely hope that this would mean no wars outside of Earth. It also seems to be inline with the Star Trek vision of the future which I think can easily deceive people into thinking that cooperation barring competition is the way to go. It is a view which pits cooperation against competition instead of seeing competition as a form of cooperation. I know I've been in that boat myself, as a Star Trek fan.

Pat McCotter


KBCraig

Quote from: gu3st on August 23, 2008, 08:42 AM NHFT
Apparently there is an "international law" that already answers the question:

QuoteThe Outer Space Treaty, the international law signed by more than 100 countries, states that the moon and other celestial bodies are the province of all mankind.

Since only a couple of governments, and perhaps a couple of private groups, have the resources to go to the moon if they wished, then "all mankind" is going to have a heckuva time defending their claim.

If I'm on the moon and "all mankind" is not, how are they going to stop me from mining or exploiting it in whatever way I choose?

Lloyd Danforth

I'm pretty sure its against the law for you to go to the Moon, Kevin.  Sheesh!

error

Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on August 23, 2008, 03:02 PM NHFT
I'm pretty sure its against the law for you to go to the Moon, Kevin.  Sheesh!

Not illegal per se, but you do need a license to leave the planet.

memenode

License my a**. Meh. Why do I even bother paying any attention to these crooks and their stupidity.

I think I'm entering a yet another anger burst... I'll post what caused it in another thread.

Puke

I own the Moon.
It's mine! Stay off it!

K. Darien Freeheart

Karma +1 for the Firefly video. I'm such a sucker for space anarchy and open rebellion to tyrannical Republics. :)

John Edward Mercier

It places the moon and other celestial bodies under the same situation as Anarctica and the deep seabed.
No nation may make laws limiting their use. So if you go to the moon and want to mine, or the deep seabed and establish a colony... good to go.


memenode

#11
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on August 23, 2008, 09:28 PM NHFT
It places the moon and other celestial bodies under the same situation as Anarctica and the deep seabed.
No nation may make laws limiting their use. So if you go to the moon and want to mine, or the deep seabed and establish a colony... good to go.

Yeah, that's all fine until the time comes when everyone wants a piece of it. That's when the real meaning of "owned by everyone" comes into play. As most of us know, "owned by everyone" is often a synonym for "owned by a government of some sort". If I were to come up with an awesome idea, become a billionaire and then found a space company capable of going to the moon, I'd rather have acres which I landed on and marked myself than "the whole moon, with the provision that everyone else can go snoop and scoop around too". No thanks.

Socialists think those kinds of "free for all" arrangements are fair for everyone, but that's because socialists seldom think things through (which is easy to conclude considering how ridiculous libertarians find their claims and theories to be just by merely following them to their logical conclusions). If it can be owned by a homesteader then it can be sold. Who am I gonna ask for my acre if I was interested in buying if everyone owned it? Nobody. I'd just go there and take it, but should there be a rush, I'd soon find myself jumping through hoops and having to follow some silly "common good" rules to do what I want. And who's gonna make the rules. I guess I'm repeating myself. The "government", yeah (or a committee or whatever they wanna call it).

Sorry, I'd rather pay a guy for my piece and then do with it whatever I please.

I shun everything that is meant to force a sacrifice of an individual for this illusion they call "common good" that they apparently see as some sort of a halo hovering over all of manking at the same time... Without individuals, there's no mankind to speak of. Therefore nobody can make a rule and say it's the rule for all mankind. It's not. Who are they (the politicians of these 100+ countries) to give the moon to the whole of manking, seriously? Did they perhaps construct it or something? I'd guess not. So they should just shut up and race us to the moon. ;)


John Edward Mercier

Its placed this way because of past history.
Few, if any, can truly 'homestead' these areas... and the international community was announcing that it would no longer support 'flag planting' claims. It makes sense to move from 'flag planting' to 'utilization' to determine ownership.

It would mean that even though the US has planted a flag on the moon... if you as an individual can utilize it, the US has no sovereignty claims. No restrictions, no rents, no taxation. Of course, if you sell your goods/services back into US territorial claim then tariff would apply.






error

Oh, man, it would be SO nice to go to the moon and burn THAT flag.