8 ms·

I wonder, if the moon becomes a habitable location in my lifetime, will all those people who bought 'an acre of the moon' have their contract upheld? [0] [0] h

I wonder, if the moon becomes a habitable location in my lifetime, will all those people who bought 'an acre of the moon' have their contract upheld? [0] [0] https://www.moonestates.com https://www.moonestates.com

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
charlesdm 9y ago
Of course not
kobeya 9y ago
No. There is absolutely no legal basis for that scam.
JorgeGT 9y ago
"Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means" Outer Space Treaty, Article II: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intr...
- stult 9y ago
  It's actually unclear whether this prohibits private property, though it probably would because property can't exist without enforcement of property rights by a sovereign government. Which raises something of a difficult question for asteroid mining ventures. Personally I think we will see the OST revised or rescinded once these hypothetical situations start actually happening. We need more clarity on property rights for commercial exploitation of space resources to become viable. No one is going to invest $100bn to capture and mine an asteroid only to find out that they technically do not have exclusive rights to the asteroid and anyone who reach near earth orbit can legally mine it too. In any case, those BS certificates for moon acerage are definitely not enforceable, for about fifty different legal reasons. The most obvious of which is you can't sell what you don't own.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrianN 9y ago
    You could probably shoot down anyone who gets too near to your asteroid. If there is no space police to stop them from stealing your stuff, there is no space police stopping you from defending your stuff either.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Not that I'm advocating it, but an alternative to rescinding the OST would be to set up an international organization responsible for allocating "space property", possibly under the umbrella of the WTO.
    - SCHiM 9y ago
      Sadly I'm quite sure that these issues are always solved by force. I simply cannot imagine that countries with the means to get to <valuable space resource> will abide by the decisions of a foreign organisation which has just given said resource to your frenemy.
  - clarkmoody 9y ago
    > property can't exist without enforcement of property rights by a sovereign government Please. Four or five seconds of thought will disprove your theory. The Moon will be the ultimate homesteading experiment: Whoever is able to put their Moon property to productive use will be the owner. It doesn't matter what the laws or treaties on Earth say; if you're there and making claim to the land, it's yours.
    - Maken 9y ago
      Until another guy comes, shots you and takes it. Laws exist for a reason.
      - ashark 9y ago
        Yeah. If there's no government but you find yourself capable of consistently, successfully enforcing your own private property rights... congratulations, you are the government. Long live the king/queen.
ddalex 9y ago
Rights only mean something only and only if two conditions are held: you have the capability to defend them and you have the capacity to defend them.
- umanwizard 9y ago
  What's the difference between capability and capacity? To my (naive) understanding, those both mean the same thing as "ability".
  - speeder 9y ago
    Capability: having the means of defense (soldiers, technology, weapons...) Capacity: having enough resources to use capability (manpower, food, ammo, money, energy) Brazil for example is great at the second, having plenty of resources, but sucks at first, having no national tank manufacturer, poor naval tech and so on... North Korea is sort the opposite: have tons od artillery, missiles, nuclear tech, but most likely nowhere near the resources needed for extended war, they can only hope people fear the damage they can output in their initial strike is deterrent enough.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
simias 9y ago
As for any territorial dispute the question you're asking is: will any of the people who've bought "moon estate" on this website be able to enforce the border (either individually or collectively)? Unless a superpower bought one of this estates, the answer is most likely no. I think those citing the "outer space treaty" and such are misled. The reason there's no private property on the moon right now is because there's absolutely no incentive to do so. If we start colonizing the moon, and in particular if we start mining it you can be sure that the story will be much more different. Look at the many territorial disputes around the arctic (and its valuable resources).
nkrisc 9y ago
I see no reason that anyone except the people who paid into it would ever recognize such claims. I can claim your house all I want, doesn't mean anyone will recognize that I own it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

charlesdm 9y ago

Of course not

kobeya 9y ago

No. There is absolutely no legal basis for that scam.

JorgeGT 9y ago

"Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means" Outer Space Treaty, Article II: http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intr...

stult 9y ago
It's actually unclear whether this prohibits private property, though it probably would because property can't exist without enforcement of property rights by a sovereign government. Which raises something of a difficult question for asteroid mining ventures. Personally I think we will see the OST revised or rescinded once these hypothetical situations start actually happening. We need more clarity on property rights for commercial exploitation of space resources to become viable. No one is going to invest $100bn to capture and mine an asteroid only to find out that they technically do not have exclusive rights to the asteroid and anyone who reach near earth orbit can legally mine it too. In any case, those BS certificates for moon acerage are definitely not enforceable, for about fifty different legal reasons. The most obvious of which is you can't sell what you don't own.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- adrianN 9y ago
  You could probably shoot down anyone who gets too near to your asteroid. If there is no space police to stop them from stealing your stuff, there is no space police stopping you from defending your stuff either.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Not that I'm advocating it, but an alternative to rescinding the OST would be to set up an international organization responsible for allocating "space property", possibly under the umbrella of the WTO.
  - SCHiM 9y ago
    Sadly I'm quite sure that these issues are always solved by force. I simply cannot imagine that countries with the means to get to <valuable space resource> will abide by the decisions of a foreign organisation which has just given said resource to your frenemy.
- clarkmoody 9y ago
  > property can't exist without enforcement of property rights by a sovereign government Please. Four or five seconds of thought will disprove your theory. The Moon will be the ultimate homesteading experiment: Whoever is able to put their Moon property to productive use will be the owner. It doesn't matter what the laws or treaties on Earth say; if you're there and making claim to the land, it's yours.
  - Maken 9y ago
    Until another guy comes, shots you and takes it. Laws exist for a reason.
    - ashark 9y ago
      Yeah. If there's no government but you find yourself capable of consistently, successfully enforcing your own private property rights... congratulations, you are the government. Long live the king/queen.

ddalex 9y ago

Rights only mean something only and only if two conditions are held: you have the capability to defend them and you have the capacity to defend them.

umanwizard 9y ago
What's the difference between capability and capacity? To my (naive) understanding, those both mean the same thing as "ability".
- speeder 9y ago
  Capability: having the means of defense (soldiers, technology, weapons...) Capacity: having enough resources to use capability (manpower, food, ammo, money, energy) Brazil for example is great at the second, having plenty of resources, but sucks at first, having no national tank manufacturer, poor naval tech and so on... North Korea is sort the opposite: have tons od artillery, missiles, nuclear tech, but most likely nowhere near the resources needed for extended war, they can only hope people fear the damage they can output in their initial strike is deterrent enough.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

simias 9y ago

As for any territorial dispute the question you're asking is: will any of the people who've bought "moon estate" on this website be able to enforce the border (either individually or collectively)? Unless a superpower bought one of this estates, the answer is most likely no. I think those citing the "outer space treaty" and such are misled. The reason there's no private property on the moon right now is because there's absolutely no incentive to do so. If we start colonizing the moon, and in particular if we start mining it you can be sure that the story will be much more different. Look at the many territorial disputes around the arctic (and its valuable resources).

nkrisc 9y ago

I see no reason that anyone except the people who paid into it would ever recognize such claims. I can claim your house all I want, doesn't mean anyone will recognize that I own it.