We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Cats, pigeons and asteroid property rights Greg Nemitz has opened his case in a Reno Court. He publicly declared a claim to Eros and sent NASA a bill for parking its probe on his property. Since he has not received payment, he has taken the next logical step.
I know… it sounds crazy: but ‘crazy like a fox’ is a more accurate way of viewing it. Greg has carefully followed legal steps on claims of ownership. He can now force the issue into the court systems. It is his feeling law already on the books is a perfectly reasonable starting point for extraterrestrial land claims and property rights.
It is not that Greg wishes to be the first extraterrestrial parking magnate. He is out to force ‘the system’ to make determinations on questions it doesn’t particularly want to face. If the courts make statements about what conditions are required for such claims, he will have met his victory conditions.
I wish him luck.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The only thing wrong with claiming an asteroid, is that it’s meaningless to claim what you can’t reach. Or else I could say “I hereby claim the entirety of the universe not already claimed by somebody else.”
You totally missed it. The point of the exercise is to force a test case on extraterrestrial property rights to get the relevant issues in law settled, hopefully by having the findings set the appropriate precedents.
Legal scholars have been discussing all of this theoretically for decades. This is the first time it has been forced in front of a judge to be reduced to practice.
Suppose this works out in US law – how is he proposing to enforce it internationally?
I’m with Julian. And, I think we should tax all foriegners living abroad.
If he can force US law to deal with the issues, then screw the international ones… Russia and China are the only others capable of getting anywere and they’ll be more than happy to go along with it so long as they can have claims cross registered and recognized.
The whole *point* is to create several property. What is the value of Eros right now? Zero. If he has a court enforced claim it goes up to a small amount… but if the closer to exploitation we get, the more the property appreciates. Which means mortgage financing and all sorts of other financial tools.
I’m sure Perry could jump in on some of the possibilities it opens up.
If Greg doesn’t get any property rights at all, the court will have to state why; that in turn helps define exactly what is required to make a claim good. We win either way.
Sorry I just don’t, excuse the pun, buy it.
I cannot see how the extra-terratorial enforcement could work. Anymore than this guy could claim an ice berg.
I do claim the entirety of the universe that no one else has claimed.
Shoulda thought it through, Julian. 😀
I’ll claim all the rest of the multiverse then. Hmmm……. big lawsuits with other selves looms.
I claim all the rest of the multiverse.
You’re joking about it without looking into the actual law behind it. He’s done his homework; he’s not make a claim over something outrageous like an entire planet. Just a good size mountain. A perfectly reasonable freehold. He has taken necessary measures in publishing his claim and acting to ‘defend’ it as required by the legal definitions. If you have been following the legal discussion of property rights in space for the last 20 years as have I and many others, what he is doing is either brilliant or appalling, depending on your viewpoint… but interesting nonetheless.
It’s an interesting proposition.
I think his claim is probably worthless, in that his ‘property’ is currently derelict. However, it may well be strong enough for the courts to establish some kind of standard for determining ownership.
Locke will be spinning in his grave.
There actually is some serious terrestial issues here too. This links to claims that exist to Antarctica.
Antarctica has been carved up a-la Africa in the 19th Century. Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, Norway (!) Chile and Argentina all have claims to the Antarctic continent.
The US, I understand, actually refuses to recognise those claims. Since no one actually is making money down there, the point is moot. In practice, none of this matters- everyone co-operates and borders don’t actually matter. Under the 1959 Antarctic treaty, all territorial claims are held in abeyance to assist in scientific co-operation.
This might change if Antarctica suddenly becomes very valuable real estate. Chile, Britain, and Argentina’s claims overlap in places.
Hmm. Dale, I don’t think size should come into it – it’s perfectly reasonable for an individual to claim a planet, if he has the ability to make use of it. I think that because the concept of property is founded in the use of matter, inability to reach or manipulate your property, and lack of any utility for it, basically negates the claim.
Still it would be good to have the law say “the treaty is ludicrous commie bunk, hereby torn up, but no you don’t own it, on account of you have no use for it”.
If you make a claim to an asteroid and said asteroid does something reprehensible (like, colliding with the Earth and thereby annihilating much of the Eurasian continent), could you be held liable for negligence?
Isn’t something similar going on with the moon? I remember reading that some guy was selling acres of the moon for like 20 US dollars and it seemed like it was in accordance with the law. While claiming Eros may have no actual relevance outside of court, the moon could very well become an important commercial place in the near future.
Dale
“Legal scholars have been discussing all of this theoretically for decades. This is the first time it has been forced in front of a judge to be reduced to practice.”
What makes you beleive that what hasn’t been resolved in decades will be suddenly resolved by a judge ? Does he have some magic powers ?
Wasn’t it the practice in the old West, that to make a claim to land you had to mark it with some stakes in the ground ? And then sit on it and defend it against intruders with guns ? Seems a good enough procedure for the stars too.
I think that because the concept of property is founded in the use of matter, inability to reach or manipulate your property, and lack of any utility for it, basically negates the claim.
Not entirely. Lots of people have owned property that they could not legally reach because it was surrounded by other private property with no easements. (In these cases, the courts may contruct an easement allowing access.) Similarly, in wartime lots of property is “stranded” behind enemy lines with no real or legal access by the owner, without necessarily depriving the owner of property rights.
Property also adheres in intangibles, such as intellectual property. “Property rights” are a variable bundle of intangible rights, so there is no reason that property rights cannot adhere to either intangible or inaccessible property. The biggest intellectual mistake that people make regarding property rights is to forget that matter is inanimate and uncaring about human affairs, while “property rights” are very much a human creation. Many people confuse the tangible things with which they are familiar with the intangible property rights that human institutions attach to those tangible things. Property, like money, is a consensual hallucination. A very useful, to be sure.
Sadly, this is the kind of lawsuit that the courts bend over backwards to get rid of on insubstantial, procedural grounds. I would bet he gets dismissed without any of the issues being addressed or resolved.
But in response to Jacob, yes, judges do have magic powers in common law jurisdictions such as the US to “create” (or, if you are more comfortable with natural law terminology, “discover”) the law.
Though I note the claim appears to have been cleverly constructed round an issue of violation of personal constitutional rights, rather than the “land” claim itself, I do hope it is thrown out for lack of jurisdiction rather than found for either side.
The US is already far to fond of extraterritoriality for my liking. Extra-planetary jurisdiction is utterly undeirable. (Cf. The recent LA property-tax claims on satelites. It cuts both ways.) The guy needs to sue on Eros.
R.C. Dean,
You are correct in stating that property rights is an abstract intellectual construct, defining the relation between tangible persons, and (usually) tangible things. For that relation to be defined, (and formalized under law) it must first exist. The relation has substance. You own things that you create (physically or intellectually), or buy, or occupy, or acquire by contract, etc. The relation that is later recognized as property right and protected by law is very real. You can’t claim property rights where no relation exists; you can’t claim property right just because you say so, you must show some title, some relation, some tangible connection to the property to base a claim on.
Jacob, I’m with you, except for the use of the adjective “tangible.”
Some persons with property rights are intangible (corporations).
Some property is intangible (intellectual property).
Nearly all connections between persons and property are intangible (I own my house, but have no material connection to it).
The question of just what nexus between a person and a thing or idea creates property rights in that person to that thing or idea is a fascinating one, but once you realize that corporations can and do own intellectual property, tangibility drops right out of the picture.
This is a null argument. There are no private property rights beyond the Earth’s atmosphere. By treaty, organized by the UN I think, the whole solar system, and possibly beyond, is held in trust for the world.
This is why nobody is going to the moon. If anyone built a moonbase they’d have to open it up for everyone.
I’ll see if I can dig up the relevant links.
ed
R.C.,
“The question of just what nexus between a person and a thing or idea creates property rights in that person to that thing or idea is a fascinating one…”
Sure. But just “because I said so” seems to me too weak a nexus. There must be more.
By the way – corporations are very tangible entities, as are groups, teams, herds, forests etc.
Thank you for everyone’s thoughtful comments. Yes, the Eros Project is designed to bring the issue to court so that decision will blaze a trail of knowlege for others to follow. If the case is fairly heard in open court, perferably with a jury, any outcome is a winner for the Space advocacy movement.
If you have not yet, please read the court filings at http://www.erosproject.com/courtcase.html.
Federal courts are loathe to address 9th and 10th ammendment issues, because the us.gov doesn’t want to admit the People retain these important rights. So chances are, the case may be thrown out on procedural or jurisdiction grounds. I have tried my best to avoid this outcome. If this happens, I can ammend whever was shown to be defective and appeal at the next level.
The computer in the court clerk’s office assigned Judge Howard McKibben to the case. This judge has some experience with property rights cases dealing with grazing rights on Federal lands in Nevada. Since the Court has jurisdiction over the constitutional question relating to Federal agency decisions, but doesn’t have sovereignty over the property, the case will be interesting, refreshing and new to McKibben.
I was able to cite case law that shows 5th amendment violations can occur outside of US sovereignty.
So sit back and enjoy the proceedings. I’m not a theif, I have taken notheng from anyone, and my purpose is to open the space frontier for everyone.
Greg N.
whitepaper
Interesting whitepaper. I’m sure I’m the last person on God’s green Earth to read this but, if nothing else, I can be counted on to be redundant.
Frankly I think the whole idea of property rights in space is a good one, but currently beyond ridiculous. Aside from the fact that you simply cannot go there, how would you establish the claim? Where would you document the claim? And, of course, what governing entity would have jurisdiction?
To think the American courts would be able to sort this out is rather silly. This would definitely take an international treaty and I cannot frankly believe that one could be written that would supplicate every Tom, Dick and Harry on the planet. If nothing else the Third World countries, which would have no hope of ever acquiring such resources, would certainly be inspired to emplace restrictions and poisonous amendments.
Frankly, at this moment, it’s a waste of time.
ed
EDITORS NOTE: ed, please use target=”new” on links as requested so that links open in new windows rather than tiny little comment sized ones.
Ed,
There is a “Catch-22” in getting humanity into space in a big way. We can see the potential for hundreds of billions in profits over the next century, if we can access Space. The tens of billions that are needed to develop the infrastructure to do that, must come from somewhere.
Governments’ Inefficencies, Earth-bound priorities and short timeline horizon, preclude government “investment” at this scale.
Commercial investors need security, usually physical collateral to back their money.
Recognition of Property Rights in Space provide that security and the “Catch-22″ is overcome.
In the New-Space” industry, we call what you are experiencing, the “giggle factor”. All proposed large changes to society tend to start with a fairly high giggle-factor. As education about the benefits of the advance occurs that factor is reduced, eventually to the point of acceptance of plausibility upon hearing the idea.
I have no doubt that if the court does make a ruling on the case, there will be international ramifications. That is also a good thing, as progress in law and treaty is more likely.
As a final thought, the Maxim, “Possession is 9/10th of the Law”, begs the question, “What is the other 1/10th of the Law?” That would be ownership without possession.
Greg N.
The obvious problem is that the US courts have no jurisdiction over outer space. The second problem is that unexplored property rights far beyond currently existing property holdings or national boundaries cannot legitimately be obtained simply by a claim – there has to be some basis to the claim, namely possession and some kind of improvement of the land in question (e.g. defending it, building on it, improving its quality etc). This is why there are no agreed claims in Antarctica, except the scientific outposts there.
I also question the wisdom of this tactic from a libertarian perspective – do we really want to invite the state to impose its authority on space as well as earth?
Property rights in space will be created the old fashioned way – by armed individuals and groups colonising an area, building on it, living there, and then defending it effectively. The only thing this claim will clarify is how out of touch the US judiciary is.
Actually there is a problem, there was a court case in the USA in the 1950’s or 1960’s and a man in CA was already given property rights to the known and unknown universe.
Well if you can claim all of what you are claiming to claim, then I would like to lay claim on the unused space between atoms and I would like each and everyone who has atoms that are existing in the non-space that I am claiming to immediately pay me one dollar for the right to exist in my non-space.