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]
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!!!
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.
'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.
Does this situation sound familiar to any US-based people? As a hint, it sounds fairly familiar to me as a Brit.
Cheers,
Ian
- 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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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
"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.
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.
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.
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".
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
The other problem is what happens to the land after you fscked it up and are long dead and gone? Now what?
Politicus
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.
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)
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...
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 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
If no one owns the sun, no one will have an incentive to take care of it.
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!
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...
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
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.
Excuse me, but isn't there enough for everybody?
(All of this is pie in the sky anyway until we have better space transportation.)
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