> Why would the small number of astronomers get ownership over the resource of the night sky instead of the much larger population of people who want internet?

> Why would the small number of astronomers get ownership over the resource of the night sky instead of the much larger population of people who want internet? They would not. It belongs to the whole of the population, not any part of it. Depriving any part of the population, especially without consent, is what's unfair and requires compensation. > I'd argue that the positive externalities of the latter far outweigh the negative externalities of the former when deciding how to tax spacex. This sounds like a great way to introduce abitraryness into the situation. If it has a value to all these parties then it has a price and if people are going to deprive other people of that then they can pay for those people's loss, and even better, get everyone's consent instead of making assumptions about the greater good and collective good.