Slashdot Mirror
Lawyers In Space...
colonist writes "The Christian Science Monitor presents an interesting overview of space law. Some want space to be shared by all: 'Outer space is a province of all mankind. There is not, and should not be, any privatization of outer space. It is a common thing that should belong to all.' Some people have claimed parts of the moon or Mars. In response, a lawyer has claimed the sun, 'to show how ridiculous a property-rights system in outer space would be if it were based solely on claims unsubstantiated by any actual possession.' The Space Settlement Initiative wants official recognition of land claims made by those who establish human settlements on the moon or Mars."
Dibs on Uranus!
[insert witty sig here]
Beings aspergers AND pulling chicks... I enjoy the challenge!
What do you call 100 lawyers on the moon?
A good start.
Technoli
Damn, and here I thought I was about to read about a proposal to kick all the lawyers off the planet!
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
I take Mars! Bwahahaah. Those rovers are now MINE.
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
So can I sue this lawyer if I get skin cancer?
when i get skin cancer i am suing him for toxics from his property "leaking" onto mine.
As in he who has the biggest space army gets to rule the law.
'to show how ridiculous a property-rights system in outer space would be if it were based solely on claims unsubstantiated by any actual possession.'
Even actual possession does not give you a right to anything. Someone else may come along and kick your sorry ass off the land (or your space rock), as history has shown time and time again. These planets and stars have been around for billions of years, how can any Johnny-come-lately dare think any of it should belong to him?
Come on, I am slowly but surely taking over all of space by registering stars at the US Patent office. Do not worry - I have about 100 constellations now - talk about prime time real-estate. :)
For those who want to claim the SUN and charge the rest of us an energy bill - well as long as you can build an office on the sun, you can have it
-A
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
...exploration really takes off, property rights will become of paramount importance. In fact, I predict that, in the next 100 years, there will be a terrestrial war over something in our Solar System that is rich in minerals. While I have no love for lawyers, the forward-thinking people in our society had better work this stuff out NOW.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
Even hinting that property and commercial enterprise is not going to be possible in space is a sure way to cripple space exploration. All large scale exploration is done for either commericial or military gain, take your pick.
For the near future though, exerting property rights over anything you can not "meaningfully control" goes against all the common law up to this point.
Can I sue him the next time I get a sunburn?
Can I sue him when a coronal mass ejection causes a massive blackout?
Can I sue him when there's an eclipse that causes the Earth's surface temperature to drop about 10 degrees?
Does this situation sound familiar to any US-based people? As a hint, it sounds fairly familiar to me as a Brit.
Cheers,
Ian
No problem. I'll just write a book and call it "The Universe". Then my publisher will start threatening everyone in the universe to give me everything they own. Soon I will own everything! Muahahaha.
Stand clear of the doors. The doors are now closing.
Assuming that some sort of treaty is arranged and signed by folks regarding property rights, how and where would these get litigated? Right now there are 100's of court jurisdictions, and one could pick and choose. Would this carry over? Oh my, what a mess that would make.
"Work is the curse of the drinking class" Oscar Wilde
- Hal..
- HAL?!
- Yes Dave
- Let me in, I have a case to prosecute
- I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I really don't see the need to add hot gas to more hot gas.
If he owns the Sun, he's liable when the next solar flare knocks out communications satellites. He could only allow flares of a certain magnitude, to comply with zoning laws.
So if there is no posession in space, is there to be law? I'm wondering if there will ever be a time when mankind can escape government. Will we ever truly be free? Will there ever be an anarchists' haven?
I say let them 'claim' the moon, mars, whatever they want. Maybe it will motivate someone to actually go there and check out their claims. And, if the don't go, why does it matter if the claimed it?
"... It is a common thing that should belong to all. ..."
Uh huh, just like say.. the land under my house should belong to 'all', right?
What about those Mars and Moon deeds that you can buy at Mastermind or other science stores? Do these automatically become null and void?
Heinlein's 'The Man Who Sold the Moon'
TOS' 'Court Martial'.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
The people who claim ownership of space should consider what they (and the rest of mankind) would think if an advanced alien race turns up and claims that the Earth is within their 'area' of space and therefore they own us?
Space is a good place for these trial laywers. Stick 'em out there and pull the plug on the air hose.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
What's really the difference between owning the Sun and owning land on Earth? Well, other than that people live on Earth and do useful things with it. But people squat on Earth property for future development, and it's certainly possible that future commercial or industrial development on the sun could make this guy rich.
I'm not a huge fan of land ownership in the first place... yes, I know it's the basis of society and whatnot, but I think we could be living just as happily without it, just differently.f
"Outer space is a province of all mankind," says Sylvia Ospina, a member of the board of directors at the International Institute of Space Law. "There is not, and should not be, any privatization of outer space. It is a common thing that should belong to all."
This is completely untenable if you want development of space. Not to mention that the idea of space being a province of "mankind" is pompous; although we may be the only guys around locally, the entire universe isn't exactly our oyster.
Companies aren't going to spend the hundreds of billions needed for facility developments on the Moon, Mars, Titan, and more without having property rights and mineral rights to those location.
Keep it free, if you want -- but you'll also be keeping it bare.
I'm all for it, assuming we don't bother to send life-support systems!
So now that he owns the sun, can he claim that our use of the light and UV radiation from the since is illegal decryption of a private algorithm and therefore illegal under the DMCA?
That sunburn is proof enough that you decrypted our signal without licensed tools!
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
You can only claim something by being there in possesion. Just like the people who claimed land in North, Central and South America a few hundred years ago. Then you might want to defend it in order to keep it.
Claiming something without the ability to take possesion is a waste of oxygen, something lawyers are good at.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
before we make property claims like that, I'd like to know how lawyers would react if we suddenly discovered that we were not the only intelligent creatures in the universe. Worse, a stargate scenario, where aliens have claimed our solar system for a couple of millenia and haven't bothered to set any base or observation post. What would happen also, if someone were to claim a random star system that was later discovered to be inhabited by aliens with a much higher technology than ours? Before making land claims I'd like to know whether or not we're alone in this galaxy. If we are, fine, if not, we'll have to make a galactic summit and decision of how to do it.
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
One lawyer already laid claim to the Sun. I say we send 'em all there.
My words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
Reminds me of the internet. I need to do my reading, but didn't it used to be relatively uncontrolled and free to everyone, and pretty much without ads? Now that space tourism is beginning and space may become practical, interest is growing. Where can I buy some moon billboard space? Calvin and Hobbes, not ad verbatim: *sign on asteroid* "McZargalds, next left. 100,000,000 earthlingburgers served daily."
... for sure, if I had actually given an ex-girlfriend legal ownership of the 'moon & stars', instead of just saying I would 'if I could' - then maybe she wouldn't be an ex-...
It will be expressed using weapons, just as any other property "law" throughout history. "Law" is just an articulated metaphor for a self-legitimated monopoly on the use of deadly force.
There will be war(s) in space as soon as enough people get out there to try to claim it. Whoever wins these wars will write the first chapter in the case law and/or war history of space "property rights."
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Imagine if these guys were around as the American west was being settled. Or when colonists were first ariving in the Americas.
Actually, in the latter case it was. The pilgrims initially attempted a communist-style society - from each according to his means, to each accoreding to his needs. They nearly starved to death. The next season they switched to a more capitalistic system and wound up with a surplus.
These clowns continually ignore the metaphysical truth that property rights are causal. If an individual cannot do as he chooses with the crops he grows grow, he will not willingly grow them. While you can compel an individual to grow them at the point of a gun, you cannot use the same method to get him to invent ways to harvest more efficiently. Brute force compulsion cannot inspire innovation - just manual labor at best.
Preventing private property rights in space will provide no incentive to develop it. The solution is simple - roll out like America's Western expansion. You can't claim anything until you set foot out there, and put some reasonable limit on how much land each individual can claim when there is a shortage.
Having just finished reading this book I have to say another land grab is not an enticing proposition.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Um, the article is dated May 06, 2002. Don't we have anything new to discuss?
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..
There was a gigantic court room, called the SCOstar, was set up in space, threatening those who live in peace on the planets below. The court room, and all space around it are owned by a group of people called, "The Lawyers", and their enigmatic leader, Darth McBride.
However, in a small planet, a new rebel leader was born, his name was Linus Tuxwalker, and he had the power of source.
After much training he joined a rebel force who found a weakness in the "SCOstar". However, before they could launch, the lawyers came down and sued the rebels for slander against lawyers, and sued them under the DMCA for illegally reverse-engineering the SCOstar....all was not well with the universe...
I say let the lawyer have the sun. I'll help him pack, maybe he can bring some of his lawyer friends?
---
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who don't know how, supervise
If you want private space ventures, you need private property rights in space. Otherwise, there is little incentive to do commercial ventures. Since the discovery of the new world, private property has been a key to getting people interested in coming. I would suggest that a human or robotic presence would be enough to claim a certain surface area of land on a planet or asteroid, if it had not yet been claimed. This way, there will be few disputes, as a first landing will be obvious, and the incentives to expedite exploration are clear. What people fail to realize also is that having private property also means that it can be changed hands in a market. It wasn't like when America was owned by a few folks and everyone else in the world said "drat, now no one else will ever be able to own land!"
Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
God damn Manifest Destiny
It's not iron-clad in my mind, but it's my gut feeling.
Besides, except for a few wackos, I really doubt that many people will want to live there. Mars is a big freakin' rock! Sure, some sci-fi geeks /think/ they want to go, but generally people need some green.
The future of space settlements is in manufactured settlements with earth-like environments (and spin-gravity), not planetary settlements.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
As a hint, it sounds fairly familiar to me as a Brit.
The problem with what you're describing is you're assuming that all the space settlements will be done by terrestrial governments, causing an independence-day event, 2176.
While we had the Dutch East India Companies providing the transport, the future space model will not be the same. You won't see US Colonies, or Chinese Colonies -- the costs are too prohibitive to be justified to a terrestrial power. The paradigm is shifting to true private enterprise, and the space colonies will be a "FutureCorp" colony and a "Maximum Space Travel" colony.
You want to be a colonist? Sign up at FutureCorp's office. They'll hire a "Governor" who was a former Senator but wants to make more money (and escape sex scandals). You'll have a new allegiance, that to the company.
These ventures will still have terrestrial presences, but will paricipate on a level playing field with other nations, representing the concerns of their space-based constituency.
When I read "Lawyers in Space..." I immediately heard the Blue Danube while picturing an attorney, briefcase clutched firmly in hand, slowly spiraling his way through space.
Until and unless a legal framework for ownership of assets (perhaps by being the first to land on them and remain for a period of time) exists, space will remain the preserve of a self-perpetuating government-academic elite and a dream for the common man - but that common man's taxes are what'll pay for it all still. Once space is opened up to industry, then ordinary people can move there, and only then.
He is currently pushing for the DMRA (Digital Millenium Ray Act) that will dictate how and when you are allowed to use those rays, even though you have paid for them and even though they are broadcast into your own space regardless.
0 ,000,000 per year to unauthorized and unpaid for photon use, not to mention such black-hat practices as the storing of solar radiation using contraband such as solar cells or the growing of plants from pirated photon streams, which can then be consumed later for energy, with the net effect that the individual in question eventually gains solar energy without having licensed or paid for it.
Technology is under development that will strictly govern the ways in which you are able to use his sun's rays, and will monitor your ray use for marketing purposes and of course to ensure that you aren't pirating rays.
Any circumvention of this control on your use of rays or any unauthorized use of rays, even those that filter through your windows uninvited, will be a federal solar system offense, punishable by up to 15 years in a federal solar system prison and a 1,000,000,000 fine.
Such stiff penalties are necessary because of the vast quantities of solar radiation involved, which, if totaled, represents a truly staggering amount of currency. In fact, the sun's owner estimates that he loses over $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
"We're working hard to ensure that everyone is complying with the law and can enjoy the sun's rays safely and legally, while still supporting the sun," says the sun's owner. Privately, though, he hints that the loss of revenue due to unpaid for photon use may eventually destroy the giant, causing it to go red and eventually fade into a much smaller, more dense star.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
This sounds like a version of Monopoly. Instead of "Boardwalk," people could try to buy Mars, and the currency would be Monopoly money.
"People should wear protective sun screen, sun glasses, sun hat and drink plenty of water in order to avoid these inconveniences - but, if somebody were to sue me for damage provoked by the Sun, I do not think any court would be that unwise to consider their claims. By recognizing that I am responsible for the damage from the Sun, the court would implicitly recognize that I do indeed own the Sun - which is ridiculous".
Sounds like something that Douglas Adams would write about, earthlings trying to own everything they can, heh.
Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices. -Theodor Adorno
Property 'ownership' should be on physical presence basis. If business A spends $20 billion to create a sustained colony on Mars, then their buildings/development should be respected. If the colony discovers something like oil, they have rights to that oil since they spent the money/effort to get there (Hallimartian - CEO: Dick Cheney's head).
This does not mean the entire planet is theirs.
The sun cannot be 'owned' by anyone (that's 1 helluva Nomex suit if someone can land on the Sun).
One the other hand, if there are indigenous inhabitants (future-speak) found on a planet, they trump the visitors.
One Vogon destroyer.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
a)Either humanity gets their asses kicked and the laws and laywers go down with the rest of the system
b) humanity adapts to the race and therefore stops landgrabbing, there goes capitalism as well in the long term These kind of things only can be applied as long as we run into no or technically and socially less developed civilizations. Therefore landgrabbing might be possible in our own solar system but can proof fatal in the long term future. Im pretty confident that a socially higher developed civilization would see our system of landgrabbing lawyers primitive and would try to influence us in the long term to get rid of it, onw way or the other. (The indians were socially much more advanced in this regard, but did not have the technical means to defend their points)
It was caused by your nebula, pay up.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I'm all for lawyers in space. Of course, lawyers in space with space suits, well, I'd have to think about that some more. ;-)
Don't underestimate the power of The Source
The first time I saw your sig, I thought, "heh - funny". But really, what does it mean? /corporate/america, or /monarchies/saudi_arabia
You want to allow Bin Laden to continue to exist. To get rid of him, 'rm' would be more appropriate.
But you want to make it so that he, his fellow Al Quaidians, and anyone in the world can run him.
If he supports options, anyone can use him against any target they deem fit, e.g.
Expect a visit from your favorite 3 letter agency shortly.
XML causes global warming.
...which is divided up between a handful of nations for scientific research, and by treaty, it belongs to the "common heritage of mankind." That, if I recall correctly from my international law studies, is the same term applied to space. Both Antarctica and outer space belong to everyone in the world for common scientific study and use.
Of course, the treaties around Antarctica would all go to pot if say, something like massive deposits of fuel oil or some other extremely profitable venture were discovered there...
It's safe to say the same about space, too.
If we send all the lawyers into space they will just get sucked into the sun, and eventually they will end up created some super villian ala Superman IV.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Did anybody else read that headline as
PIGS IN SPAAAACE
?
Don't forget that that civilization died out of a plague propagated on unsanitary telephones.
To attempt (why oh why?) to salvage reason from a joke, lawyers are not really the problem. Rather the problem is that they are one profession. Right now, lawyers make the laws, prosecute/defend positions under the laws, and judge under the law. Imagine instead some way to split those into 3 imiscible professions, or at least control hopping back and forth, or backscratching. A similar 3-way nastiness, for comparison purposes is businesslobbyistpolitician.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
...if he plants a flag on it. In fact, I suggest all lawyers try to claim the sun in this manner. It'll be easy--just go at night. ;)
No, the +x *allows* /bin/laden to be *executed*.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Good point. I believe one of the reasons we have averted all-out nuclear war in the past is because it would have global consequences. But an offworld power with nukes would have no such concerns.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
just move there?
The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
Where do they get the people for these stories?
Laws are based on structures built around the application of force (hence the phrase "force of law"). You just can't dream up a bunch of silly utopian-sounding dim-witted platitudes and have that become some sort of interstellar law.
One of the laws mentioned in the article was signed off by only five countries.
I'm afraid that this well-meaning, yet groundless search for universal fairness will only do harm -- as many posters have pointed out, why seek to commercialize space if there is no ownership?
Look. I want to live in a world where there is no war, everybody loves one another, and we all sing kumbaya -- but that ain't going to happen. Economic progress is built on the chaos of individual freedom and property. That means along with nice TVs and BMWs we get greed, wars, and lawyers. That's just the nature of commerce. And by golly, I want to drive a new BMW spaceship before I croak!
for that sunburn I received over the weekend. He had better keep his damned photons off my property!
My rights don't need management.
Well we can squabble all we want about which lawyer owns the sun and which multinational corporation owns XYZ region of Mars...
But we all know that this entire solar system is owned by those little green men out by Alpha Centauri. And they'll send a bit worse than lawyers to solve their property disputes...
Yeah! Send them all to space.
The picture in my mind of a lawyer sucking vacuum and then shriveling into a frozen, parched corpsicle is very pleasing.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
People get all confused about the role of property rights and governments because the tax base has shifted from assets to income.
If the tax base were on assets, where it belongs, it would be much more intuitive to people that government, when functional, provides an insurance service: it insures that property rights are protected.
The simplest way of envisioning this is to imagine a reinsurance network where the reinsurer of last resort is what we call "the government". Where "citizen franchise" comes in is in the fact that during times of emergency, "governments" have historically conscripted able-bodied men (and to some degree and in some roles women) to enforce the property rights insured by the government. This citizen franchise is in the form of votes on things relating to the conscription of citizens but it also is in the form of exemption from certain other duties or taxes -- which would otherwise be paid in the form of insurance premiums.
Imagine a situation in which if you declare something to be insurable, you do nothing more than pay your insurance premiums and that's the end of your tax liability. Certainly, the guys who run around the globe tormenting Muslims wouldn't like this -- since they would have to actually end up paying for the risks they bring upon themselves and others in places like the US, but really -- do the rest of us need atavisms like the World Trade Center that much?
Seastead this.
"Outer space is a province of all mankind," says Sylvia Ospina, a member of the board of directors at the International Institute of Space Law. Try telling that to a Klingon, lady.
There is a slightly similar situation in Antarctica, where a treaty exists in which no claims of ownership are recognised. I think its quite a common belief in some military circles that it could well be a serious point of conflict if any quantity of natural resources are found there. Its probably a very good model of how things might work for ownership of the moon and mars.
From an antarctic website:
In 1961, the Antarctic Treaty took effect with signatures from the twelve countries who participated in the IGY. The treaty is a surprisingly short and simple document, but it is one of the most successful international agreements ever made. It deals with issues regarding the future of Antarctica and recognizes that:
The Antarctic Treaty guarantees four things: "Antarctica will remain open for scientific research to nations who agree to the treaty. No military bases can be built on the continent. There will be no testing of nuclear weapons or dumping of nuclear waste in Antarctica. No claims of ownership are recognized or denied, and no new claims of ownership can be made. Since the treaty took effect several additional countries have signed on and members have added laws to protect Antarctic plants and animals. In 1991, the treaty was further strengthened by the Protocol on Environmental Protection which defines Antarctica as a "natural reserve devoted to peace and science." Today, scientists maintain year-round research stations throughout Antarctica but it remains an untamed wilderness.
There are things we know we don't know and things we don't know we don't know. - Donald Rumsfeld
First chapter? Sorry, but they were written long ago regarding a space rock called 'Earth'. Your other points are quite valid.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
So if you want permanent ownership you just need to own a carefully determined path on the earth's surface.
... until people are willing to defend a claim of ownerwhip with force, claims are meaningless.
Territorial disputes always come down to who has the authority to back up their claim with a 19-yr-old carrying a rifle.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
The real question, of course, is how Jewish law applies in space.
Jews... In... Spaaaace...
Anyone who studies history knows that "ownership" of any piece of land or other property can only be secured by the ability to defend that ownership.
The USA is only owned by its people because we came together to claim such ownership and we have defended that ownership, even to the exent of war.
Everything that a person owns in this country or in this world he or she only posseses by virutue of the law. It is our laws and law enforcement which defend your right to keep your property.
So my point is, when it comes to claiming property on any unclaimed piece of land, on Earth or in Space, your right to that land can only be acheived by virtue of the law which is to say that the virtue of the people is what lets you claim land or property. If the people don't agree that the property is yours, your right to that property is forfeit unless you plan on defending your right to that property, which usually means either a lot of time in some sort of high court, or more probable: war. Let us not forget that the main reason war exists is because of the notion of property.
There will be war in space, its not a matter of if, but a matter of when.
But they'd be very expensive and treacherous to produce with all that sea ice floating about. The Barent's Sea petroleum deposits in the arctic ocean has similar production problems, but a close-by market. Much easier to take-over a middle eastern country's reserves :-) Or exploit the huge reserves off-shore California.
Relativity effects make rules based on length of occupation difficult. If I find 10 objects that are travelling in a group at some vast speed relative to earth, I can easily stay on each of them for a year (earth time) without having to even unroll my space sleeping bag.
Of course, my claim, travelling as a radio message, may not arrive on earth for years... my lord, think of the effect on patent law! *shudder*
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
I expound on this a bit in my blog entry Suburban development: the new serfdom.
That is why "left vs. right", "conservative vs. liberal", "Republican vs. Democrat" in the U.S. is a false dichotomy -- the real battle should be over individual liberty vs. fascism, not over whether fascism should be in the form of large corporations or government.
Great article. Unfortunately their numbers are way off. You can buy marginally productive land in Saskatchewan, Canada for under USD100 per acre, which presumably is worth a lot more than land on the moon or mars, which has low utility and is not scarce...
Bryan
The other problem is what happens to the land after you fscked it up and are long dead and gone? Now what?
Politicus
As long as you have a towel, your travel is not restricted. It's like a passport, but useful!
Yes, but in this sense, "execute" does not mean "end his life." It's "execute" in the sense of "allow to run". I agree in this case it should be 'rm -rf /bin/laden' or perhaps 'killall laden && rm -rf /bin/laden' in case /bin/laden is already running.
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
This would be problematic for objects of just over your proposed 100km limit. For example, I land on the opposite side of your 102km object, stake my claim and start mining. After 9 months, I'm more than half way through the asteroid and eventually come out the other side. There goes your mineral rights.
Not to mention that the transfer of all of that mass would effect the orbit of the object.. possibly making the orbit unstable or on a collision course. Who gets to decide about that?
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
The problem is not really with the lawyers. Yes, I'm serious. Take a look at Jewish law if you want an example of this (the book of Leviticus in the Bible). No lawyers involved, but "thou shalt not kill/murder" wound up with a number of variations - depending on the circumstances. Laws become convoluted as the worst offenders find loopholes and those are sealed. Lawyers have added to that problem by making a career of "definitions" (as in "the definition of murder is ..., therefore this is not murder"). But the initial problem lies with the criminal element which will break laws and seek ways to avoid the repercussions of breaking those laws.
... completely unacceptable to them. Of course, they can't make it obvious that they are shifting the burden to those below them on the income scale, so highly complex and confusing laws are born.
Never mind the criminals, who do you think gets the tax code rewritten regularly? Those who regularly seek out loopholes, which must then be closed (more tax law). Any simplified tax code would likely mean the top few percent would pay more than they do now
(All this should not be taken to mean I think lawyers are worthwhile, or that they should become politicians, but it does mean they don't hold full responsibility for the state of law in the U.S.)
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
I think it should be a constitutional amendment that Lawyers are not allowed to hold public office.
Sure, sounds like a plan! Let's just get this thing passed through congress and... um... crap.
These are all the interpretations I can think.
Every single one I run into claims that the UN treaty prohibited government from claiming land on other planets or celestial bodies, but not individuals... but they are wrong.
The Treaty states:
"States bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, whether carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried on in conformity with the principles set forth in the present Declaration. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the State concerned..."
Which basically means you can claim some land somewhere, but there's no way you can "back it up," so to speak. So what good does that do? That's the whole point of a government/nation... to protect your land and private interests.
Also:
"Outer space and celestial bodies are not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."
Notice how the used the term "nation" here, not government. This allows any group to be affected by this clause. For instance, the "Lunar Embassy" crack pot that sells land on other celestial bodies is concidered a nation (a relatively large grouping of people... grows with each idiot that buys land from them), and thus falls under this clause. Even if it were necessary for a group to be a government for this to apply, going by the definition of a government, this "company" would be catagorized as such.
I'm with the Christian Scientists on this one...
lawyer's should be in space. And that's if they've been put on the "B" spaceship with all the middle managers, telephone sanitizers and the like and sent away like in Hitchhiker's Guide.
Someone else mentioned "The Man Who Sold the Moon" and there are a few other references worth mentioning. One is even fact, not fiction.
Claiming bodies in space.
Claiming space, itself. (sans bodies)
First, a relevant boot was (ISTR) "Inherit the Stars" by Po?l, (Poul Anderson for Frederick Pohl) about the crew of the first (generation-style) starship trying to write a history for their future children, to understand their roots. The rest of the book was a series of vignettes in that frame. Many had legal ramificatons, one in particular was appropriate.
It was about Earth, the Asteroid Republic, and the inhabitants of Vesta. The folks on Vesta felt like members of the Asteroid Republic, and acted that way. But technically, the (leading?) Trojans belonged to Earth, and Vesta was part of that group. So Earth wanted to 'enforce it's rights' and the Vestans weren't happy.
*SPOILER*
They got Earth to see how much easier it would be to ship raw materials off Vesta if it was outside the Trojan's gravity well. So they built a mass engine to change the asteroid's orbit, slightly. As soon as the orbit changed, they were no longer in the Trojans, so no longer part of Earth. Their application to join the Asteroid Republic had already been prepared and submitted, and was quickly granted.
This particular asteroid, being part of the Trojans, was defined by its orbit. Change the orbit, change the asteroid, effectively.
To a more real case - Arthur C. Clarke.
He figured out the concept of geosynchronous orbit. In these days, he could/would have patented it. Perhaps in past/future days he would have claimed it, and tried to rent it out.
IMHO, some form of property rights are necessary in order to move into space. It does no good to do the hard work of improving a place, or even access to that particular space, only to have someone else jump in, claiming 'no property rights in space!' Reward for effort and investment is deserved. Mere gatekeepers are not. Sounds like IP Law.
I have little confidence in Space Property Rights being developed with any more sanity that IP Law.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I only charge 1 nanocent per photon of use.
They actually go over this very question in TFA. If you sue him for getting skin cancer, and if a court rules in your favor, they've just also ruled implicitly that he, in fact, does legitimately own the sun. That's just what he wants someone to do, I think.
I think Robert Heinlein's fictional "Larkin decision" as mentioned in Stranger in a Strange Land. Land ownership of spatial objects under that system is pretty much first come (land on) first serve, with a caveat that you must stay yourself or leave human representatives on the property for as long as you intend on laying claim to it.
.sig
I have no
I have no
Lucky for the Native Americans, they don't live on the Moon and Mars. The downside of expansion goes to the native people. Since there are no humans in space yet, landing on dead rock poses no moral dilemma. In fact, I'd say it's immoral not to expand the reach of the human race and earth life.
Yeah, yeah, possible Martian life. Listen, when it becomes immoral to kill bacteria, call me. Until then I'll continue to wash my hands and take anti-biotics when I'm sick.
Blaze a trail to the New World
If no one owns the sun, no one will have an incentive to take care of it.
Value is also a function of location, location, location. I suspect that for instance, easily obtained water in space is worth more than gold on Earth. Or to put that in different terms, by the time you factor in launch costs from Earth, water is worth its weight in gold.
Just checked, gold is $391/oz, or $6256/lb, according to a quick google search.
Launch cost is $5000/lb LEO to $18,000 GEO, same source.
So water on-orbit is roughly worth its weight in gold. The higher you go, the more valuable it gets.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
..there were Geeks In Space. * Note: just a little humor. Not a flame or whatever. *
As long as Big Bubba doesnt claim Uranus!
Hey..
If these people say they own the sun / moon / other celestial objects.
Let's start charging them property taxes.
Sun Example:
6069871166000.84 square kilometers of surface (Approx)
x $200 / square kilometer
= $ 1,214,000,000,000,000 (Approx)
+ Processing Fees (Lawyers love them.. so they would be happy to pay them.).
Of course the fees would be charged yearly... And interest would be charged on missed payments!
After something like this, lets see how fast they give up these celestial objects!
>>Uh huh, just like say.. the land under my house should belong to 'all', right?
Yes, the land under your house should belong to all. In fact, it does. The earth does not belong to us, we belong to the earth. And yes, I am of partial native American descent thank you very much.
But since you obviously are of the opinion that Mother is a pie to be divided among people, think about this:
If everything can be property (including the sun), who owns the air? Who owns the water? Who owns you, who owns god(if you're of faith), who owns the clouds and the insects and the birds? Who indeed owns the sun? Who owns truth? freedom? reason? love? Who owns the past and the future and the present? Who owns the pattern that's in your DNA as well as mine? The person with a deed or a patent? No? Yes? Maybe? Furthermore what are the implications of property? In some places and times people are considered property. In those conditions, your stated sentiment is the backstop which condones slavery. Not own slaves? Why not? I'm lazy and I have the power, right? Right? No, we've grown up from that.
Property laws are ONE way of managing social boundaries. Don't mistake expediency for necessity... please.
/me climbs down off soapbox
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
not until people and companies begin colonization en masse, will we see a need for issuing such legal rights.
By all means, put them in space. Send them on the ships.. but make sure their uniforms are red shirts.
I had a great sig.. then I lost my penmanship.
geeze people, look up 'pun' or 'irony' someday...
This is what we on Earth call a "Joke". See, in this instance, it DOES mean "end his life", that's the funny part. Then you're expected to muse for a moment over the cleverness of the double-meaning and ponder how great it is that UNIX can be used to make everyday life just a little bit better through humor.
The sun, or any objects in space, or any volume of space. However, I do claim a sphere of radius exactly AU/(e*PI) centered on the center of the sun, and I would appreciate you all paying me the reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing fee that I'm due so you can make use of the sunlight that passes through my property.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
St. Expuery forsaw this, in satire. The best quotes:
p ter13.html
"How is it possible for one to own the stars?"
"To whom do they belong?" the businessman retorted, peevishly.
"I don't know. To nobody."
"Then they belong to me, because I was the first person to think of it."
=====
Full text of the chapter: http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/framecha
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
In response to the claims, a ship known as the "B Ark" will depart from Earth later this week to claim a portion of space for their own. The B Ark will be loaded with lawyers to ensure their claims are made legal.
SAILING MISHAP
I think a fair system would be that you own whatever it is you build, but you have no rights to the land it's built on. For example. If you built a settlement on Mars but for whatever reason you can't keep it populated and leave it abandoned whomever moves in during your absence is the new owner.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
That wouldn't end the shenanigans, it would create new shenanigans.
If Windows is running and there's no one there to use it, does it still crash?
cmkrcs1 was here.
"Outer space is a province of all mankind," says Sylvia Ospina, a member of the board of directors at the International Institute of Space Law. "There is not, and should not be, any privatization of outer space. It is a common thing that should belong to all."
Fine. I'll take whatever space Sylvia is in. It belongs to us all, right? So I've got just as much right to set up my house there as she does.
Actually, part of the problem is that we're thinking of property as a two-dimensional piece of real estate. What we're doing is applying last-century's solutions to today's problems: "Self-propelled vehicles on public roads in Britain must be proceeded by a man on foot waving a red flag and blowing a horn"
In space, property could be something non-physical, like an orbit, or something three-dimensional, like the interior of an asteroid, as well as the traditional two-D view of property (the surface of the asteroid). The laws of ownership need to reflect the different reality that is space travel. These folks are not helping.
Chip H.
I would suggest something like the Homestead Act.
If you want to claim it, you have to live on the property for at least 5 years and improve it.
Perhaps instead of 100 acres, we should go for a territorial limit of 12 miles, or more reasonably the 200 mile economic zone many countries use, as territory.
Now -that- would provide impetus to space exploration!
Companies aren't going to spend the hundreds of billions needed for facility developments on the Moon, Mars, Titan, and more without having property rights and mineral rights to those location.
Imagine it's 2044, your company spent billions setting up a dilithium mine on the moon. Only to find out that your mine is some property "claimed" by some guy back in 2004. And his heirs are asking you to purchase your property from them.
I think claiming celestial bodies should be the same as the way early settlers did it. If you moved to a piece of land, farm it, improve it, then it will be yours.
Claiming land on other planets should have more rules than calling shotgun.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
Check with your military.
Any space that has a view of Earth is completely under their control, and if you want to argue with them, they would be very glad to hear it.
They like having targets announce themselves to the guys with guns, bombs, and missiles.
You better believ that anyone going up will ahve to have a lot of clearance, regular inspections, and regular supervision to make sure that noone is going to bomb any target of choice.
Like the air space restrictions over Washington,DC, other big cities, and all military bases, operations and wars.
No way the military government is going to allow free use of space, not until they have it completely under their control.
If you want to live in space, or "own" a piece of it, you had better enlist, because that is the only chance you have for the forseable future.
wake up and hold your nose
Quit worrying. After half a century of trying, we can't build a space station that works, we can't do more than visit the moon and look around, and we can't send people beyond Lunar orbit. It's been over thirty years since the last time a human left Earth's atmosphere. The Shuttle only goes to low earth orbit, where there's still enough atmospheric drag to bring space stations down in a few years. We can't even send people to geosynch orbit.
space is a province of all mankind. There is not, and should not be, any privatization of outer space. It is a common thing that should belong to all.
Since communism has failed every time it's been tried on earth, maybe it will work in space.
make bin laden executable, so we can get rid of him once and for all, atleast, thats my interpretation. Its a pun :P
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
That's supposedly how the Indians felt when the white man first offered to buy their land. They accepted the deal thinking they were getting money for nothing - how could you really own anything you didn't create and couldn't carry with you?
If the Indians supposedly felt that way, why were they in a state of nearly constant warfare over which tribe controlled which territory?
the solar flares, and all the other bad things the sun does. He owns it, he should keep it on a leash and clean up after it.
I'm sure that human history will repeat itself and that these issues will be resolved through military power as usual.
Want simple laws? Want elected representatives to be forced into an individual up or down vote on every piece of pork? Want to end the silly procedure of slipping in a last minute amendment to fatten or kill a bill? Pass this amendment:
Congress shall pass no law exceeding in length 5000 words.
For reference, the original U.S. constitution was ~4600 words. Adopting something like the Federal Budget would take well over 100 votes this way. (Back of the hand calculation based on current administration's draft 2004 budget at 2866 pages.)
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
From the Article:
it has become increasingly popular to 'buy' properties on the Moon and other planets
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Earth's moon is not a planet.
Speaking of sigs, yours made me LMAO
Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
I Hate \.
A good start!
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
The more laws you write, the more complex the system will become, and in the process, the more loopholes that will be created.
You want to have foolproof laws? You have to stick to simple stuff like, 'Thou shall not kill'.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
...As I never requested his service. I have no finincail obligation for products and/or services that are provided unsolicied. ergo, his counter suit will fail.
Furthermore, I can file a class action lawsuit for everyone on the planet, stating that his sun is a cancerous menace to the health of everyone on the planet (and thus a public nusance), and ask that a judge fine him every day until he removes it from the solar system.
Legal onwership of an ongoing nuclear explosion is what I would refert to as a 'liability' and not an 'asset'.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
While suburban residents may own independent plots, they are not allowed to produce upon them. And as I indicated in my blog article, there are no affordable commercial plots because they are all multi-acre -- such as strip shopping centers. Retail space in a shopping center is leased rather than sold, as individual rowhouse stores are in small-town urban form.
Also, to address your tangential remark on malls, I side with the urban planners. See my blog entries Connecticut Supreme Court rules malls can block free speech and Privatizing of the public realm restricting RFID protesters.
Again, your analogy of space to the U.S. frontier is astute. Thinking about it some more, though, it just may be that individual plot ownership has no role in space due to its inhospitality. Taking your analogy of sea transport to space transport, I don't share your vision of competition, but rather imagine that the situation would still be monopolistic, controlled by corporations or government, or both. Namely, I expect space transport to be controlled similar to airlines today. All civil liberties are now gone in airports; there are excessive "security" taxes; some countries are cut off from airline service for strictly political reasons; etc.
To a certain extent, people need other people to survive. But the degree to which this is true in space (compared to the U.S. frontier) and the dependency on a likely transport monopoly (and monopolies on space homesteading equipment) leads me to believe that individual plot ownership in space would be meaningless even in the unlikely scenario that governments and corporations would allow it.
No no no.
It makes him executable, not executed.
To be executable one must be alive.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Duck Dodgers: I claim this planet in the name of Earth!
Marvin the Martian: I claim this planet in the name of Mars. Isn't that lovely?
Duck Dodgers: Screw you, I'm gonna get my lawyer.
Marvin the Martian: I'm going to get my lawyer. Yes.
Duck Dodgers: Well, I'm going to get MORRRRRREEEE lawyers!
Etc.
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
"They're Jews...They're Jews in Space..."
:)
Sounds like a sequel to Spaceballs!
I think ownership in this case is a philosophical question, and even a religious one, long before a legal question. If we are thinking about ownership of "land" out of planet Earth, then we believe:
(1) we are the only intelligent beings in space (or others in space can also claim ownership)
(2) intelligent beings have the "right of ownership" on the physical world, and the only question is "limited to Earth or not?"
(3) any living form can have "ownership" as a good, that can be sold, purchased, given and inherited as any other good
So the question is, why do we believe all, some or any of these three statements?
PS: Please forgive my poor english, my mother tongue is spanish
There is not, and should not be, any privatization of outer space. It is a common thing that should belong to all.
Total Bullshit. Ownership of the space and all contained within a sphere from the Sun to the Ort cloud is the NATURAL RIGHT of the original inhabitants of this solar system: Us. If any deliquent ET tries to slip in through a wormhole in the middle of the night while we're sleeping we have every right to BLAST it!
This is just a logical extension of the Monroe Doctrine: The Io333 Doctrine.
The vacuum people can easily drop junk/asteroids down the gravity well, but just a little damage destroys the space habitat.
The truth is the US already has enough bombs with low radiation outputs to destroy every living thing in Russia/China without permanetly damaging the environment.
But either of those countries would have the time to return the attack. It is the return attack that is most terrifying, not the envirionmental consequences.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Well, then it falls down to the oldest tradition. Might makes right. If they can't project enough force to defeat us, they can't enforce any property rights. Otherwise it'd be like the native americans(and numerous other peoples).
I don't read AC A human right
Most of these pro privatization posts fail to point out something very specific. Corporations own land, but the own land on top of government territory. The corporation is then subject to that governments laws... which allows us to use the the valuable concept of oversight.
As far as I'm concerned until the world comes under a universal government or governments are able to divy up the land or agree on one set of outer space laws, no one should own outer space. This is for the protection of the who work in outer space, so governments can oversee these corporations. A completely private asteroid where the company has final say is little more than a dictatorship, and I believe that is a very bad thing.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
chmod a+x /bin/laden && exec /bin/laden
Excuse me, but isn't there enough for everybody?
(All of this is pie in the sky anyway until we have better space transportation.)
darn, from the title I thought we were about to shoot all the lawyers INTO space...
I would expect squatter's rights to have presidence in most cases - unless, of course, 'moon men' or 'native martians' show up with the titles to the land.
My question is, how did we go from nomadic tribesmen to our current property based system? Perhaps that would be instructive for future outer space explorers, realters and land speculators.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I don't think the concept of property ownership or "common rights of humanity" will really mean much of anything unless and until we actually have people up there representing themselves or a government to assert a property claim.
I prefer private ownership, nobody is going to put their own investment into a piece of property they do not have a legal right to, and if there is no private investment, there is no space colonization or industrialization.
As to why this issue is likely to become a "live" one long before the lawyers expect it to, follow the link in my sig.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Uh, the 'bar' is not an acronym.
In England there were four Inns of Court, which were legal societies and law schools in the sense that guilds trained their apprentices. Students sat on one side of the room, while the lawyers sat on the other side. Separating the two sides was a railing. That railing was LITERALLY the bar. No one could practice law without being permitted to cross from the one side to the other, which wouldn't happen until the existing lawyers felt a student was competent to practice law.
Likewise, once admitted to the bar, i.e. allowed to join the ranks of the lawyers, one could pass the bar in courtrooms, which is the railing that seperates the gallery where spectators may sit from the working area where the parties, lawyers, jurors, judge, etc. all are.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Many tribal cultures have a "corporate" theory of ownership, meaning that ownership is by collective groups: tribes, families, associations and nations. Over centuries and millennia law in all societies has tended to develop towards reducing the number of things not having clear owners. Supporters of property rights argue that this enables better protection of scarce resources.
In classical economics there is an ambiguous position taken with regard to land ownership. Many theorists seemed to consider it a necessary evil, and argued that it could not be defended if there was not some obligation to keep and improve the land. In the 20th century, the idea of ecological stewardship led to legal ways that land ownership could be rightfully restricted because of erosion, pollution, biodiversity and other concerns - which reduced the level of what came to be called nature's services to all in the locality. And, property tax increasingly was levied to pay for "services" offered by the state, which could not be refused (such as fire fighting).
Homesteading required service to or improvement on land for a period of time. Not quite the homesteader, George Washington, who purchased large tracts of land west of the Allegheny Mountains (perhaps in direct violation of the Proclamation of 1763), successfully won a lawsuit against squatters on the land he bought based on his careful recordkeeping, though many of the records of his deeds to the land were burned by the English during the War of Independance. He demonstrated to the squatters his ownership of the land by showing them the improvements he had made on the land before their arrival.
Under Common Law, subsequently codified in the US under State and local laws, Adverse Posession allows a person to get title to land from the actual owner simply by using the land, out in the open for all to see. For example, your neighbor built a fence on your land with the intention of taking the property, paid property taxes, and you knew about it but did nothing and this continued for a period of time set by state law, your neighbor may be able to claim this property as his/her own. The theory is that, by not disputing your neighbor's use of your property through a lawsuit, you, as the actual owner have abandoned your rights to the property.
Thus, if I were to voluntarily send a check for $1 yearly to some government as payment of taxes for the posession of the sun, I could, in theory and after a number of years specified in that municipality or state's law, deny the claim of the current owner. I suppose I might be able to "make improvements" on my property by adding to its fuel by sending space junk into a decaying solar orbit.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
...then charge 'em back property taxes.
I recalled that space was part of our "common heritage" (as defined by Malta's ambassador Arvid Pardo).
I googled a bit and found:
Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967 requires that its use and exploration have to be in the "interest of all states" and "for the benefit of all mankind" (Article I OST). The mankind clause in Article I OST and the principle of cooperation and due account of the interests of all states in Articles IX and X OST are the structural elements of the status of outer space as a "common heritage of mankind" form the legal basis for setting up a regime of "cooperative/common security" in outer space. (see this site).
But apparently this 'usage' of space is not defined in the treaty. But if it is part of the common heritage of mankind, no individual can have any right to ownership!
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
Courtesy of boxes of Wheaties, I own a one-square-inch plot of "land" both in Alaska and on the Moon! (I do admit, however, that it might take me a bit of time to actually find my deeds to same!) I read quite a while ago that the land on which the plots were based was taken over by a govt agency in Alaska in satisfaction of back taxes. So, there goes my micro-homestead in that state! Now they're trying to take my land on the Moon?! The scoundrels!
A lot of folks who has served in the US army are war-criminals. Kerry has the guts apparently to admit it.
Bush is hardly guilty of any operational war-crimes. For that you have to actually serve in combat-zones, which he never did.
Check out my PHP Url Validator
Ah, but in your statement, you have just proven the point I was after.
Thou shall have the right not to be killed.
Good one. Simple. I like it.
Thou shall have the right to protect your rights with equal retaliation.
So, that means that if you try to kill me, I can can kill you to defend myself. Seems fair, but doesn't that violate the first right that you suggested, your right not to be killed? Now, you have to add to the 'laws' you have created to take care of this case if you want to avoid a paradox, creating more complexity, and thus more loopholes.
I don't know if you know who Kurt Godel was, but he was a famous Mathmatician from the early twentieth century who wrote a paper, proving that all complex systems are incomplete. It has some rather interesting implications for many fields.
GODEL SHOOTS....HE SCORES!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
brought you Enron? Worldcom?
Let me be the first to welcome our extra-terretrial corporate overlords?
Company store for the oxigen. Ticket back? Gotta settle the debt, first. Boo hoo. Back to work! You owe us 17 billion. Opps, forgot the complaint handling charge, 17 billion 400 million now. Back to work before I double it! You cant go back! No it is not slavery, we dont own you. Food! Get outta station!
emt 377 emt 4
Finally we can sue the moon owners for tidal flooding and we can sue the sun owner for skin cancer and overheating. I wonder what they pay in property taxes.
--NerdMachine
When Deng Xiao Peng (1904-1997) began instituting reforms in 1997, the whole picture changed, and it is no longer possible to argue that the PRC is a communist nation. Definitely socialist, as there is still much state ownership of major industry, and definitely authoritarian, as you can still be jailed for open dissent, but not communist or totalitarian, as could be said pre-Deng.
Indeed, there have been steps back for every step forward. I remember the "Spiritual Pollution" campaign of the 1980s, instituted by Communist Party hardliners in reaction to the new freedoms and increasing influence of Western culture. But as the aged hardliners were replaced by younger party members with new ideas, such campaigns have lost their steam.
Two better examples (maybe the only real examples) of nations that are still communist would be Cuba and North Korea, but they've really only been able to maintain their communist status because of each nation's "cult of personality". Yet neither nation really represents a threat to the world order. Admittedly, N. Korea is a thorn in the side, but their influence is severely limited vis-a-vis exporting communism. Cuba has largely become irrelevant, except as a campaign issue in U.S. politics.
Really, the biggest difference between the PRC and the USA is that in the PRC, government still domiates industry, while in the USA, industry dominates the government.
Transparent open Free Market capitalism is also still theoretical and relegated to Academia. Yet there is definitely a trend towards such free markets (though they might never be achieved because there is an opposing trend powered by powerful and monied interests that continues to consolidate power into fewer and fewer hands). The more transparency and openness in our markets, the more perfect a capitalism we will have, the more level a playing field we will have, and the more opportunities we will have for more people to have good lives.
Important note: Free market capitalism is not necessarily the same as laisez-faire capitalism. Businesses can still be regulated under free market capitalism; the ideal is that regulation be uniform globally.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Go read Fahrenheit 451 and tell me which candidate you would have voted for in the book. Hmm. Good fodder for the Slashdot poll, I think.
And here I thought we'd simply found a way to agree with Shakespeare...
"First thing we do, is kill all the lawyers." -- Henry VI
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Joe Haldeman's The Mazel Tov Revolution also springs to mind as an example of space property rights in fiction. It is also an example of a monopolist getting a stranglehold but eventually losing out. Well worth reading.
Pretty interesting... thanks for taking the time to explicate.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction