Does the U.S. own the moon if we got there first?

[RCA]

If undiscovered land is first come first serve, then shouldn't the United States own the moon or is there some international treaty preventing this? This is of course assuming that we DID go to the moon and we did it first.

:confused:

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I think "owning" space (meaning the immediate space between the moon and earth) seems to be the goal. Who cares who is on the moon if it takes 3 days to get there?

As far as getting there first.... explain that to the natives of this continent (who did sign treaties with the Europeans). It's all about the guy with the biggest gun and the smallest heart. Technology doesn't change men.

[Mesogen]

I think there is some UN treaty that divides up the moon for future mutual use. I think it's similar to the way Antarctica is divided up.

Ever seen those ads selling real estate on the moon? The UN doesn't recognize it, but you could in the future, based on the treaty buy a patch of land on the moon if you want. I think.

[Matt Collins]

Anyone can claim it, but enforcing that claim is a different story. If you get a colony there and keep it perpetual, and defend it, then you can claim it and probably have it recognized by other nations.

There is a treaty where Antarctica is agreed upon by all nations that no nation can claim it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

[Matt Collins]

Oh here are some more relevant Wiki links. I wouldn't use them for anything serious but they are a good starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate

[Mesogen]

I think "owning" space (meaning the immediate space between the moon and earth) seems to be the goal. Who cares who is on the moon if it takes 3 days to get there?

As far as getting there first.... explain that to the natives of this continent (who did sign treaties with the Europeans). It's all about the guy with the biggest gun and the smallest heart. Technology doesn't change men.

Did you know there are only about 180 slots open for geostationary orbits? It's so the radio signals don't overlap. There is fierce competition for them.

[Conza88]

No, whoever has mixed their labor with the moon (environment) owns it. If there are people who are doing that on behalf of the state (i.e Nasa astronauts) then I guess that it goes to that entity because the individual is being paid to do so.

If anyone goes up there and builds an enclosure or space shelter - they own it and obviously the land it is on, you would have to attach it to the surface etc.

You don't own anything else. The other area is still up for grabs.

[Conza88]

Did you know there are only about 180 slots open for geostationary orbits? It's so the radio signals don't overlap. There is fierce competition for them.

Why is that? Because a government entity says so right? It has to license them? :confused:

It's BS.. it's like there is only limited no. on AM frequency... thus FM was made...

The free market would invent another whole potential list of frequency's etc.. or wave bands.

[Mesogen]

Why is that? Because a government entity says so right? It has to license them? :confused:

It's BS.. it's like there is only limited no. on AM frequency... thus FM was made...

The free market would invent another whole potential list of frequency's etc.. or wave bands.

Yeah. Sometimes there are agreements to put a satellite into a space near another one in the same slot working on different frequencies. But I think some frequencies are just better than others for sending certain types of data using a certain amount of power. So you are kind of limited to which frequencies you would want to use.

But hey I didn't make the rules. :)

[Conza88]

I think there is some UN treaty that divides up the moon for future mutual use. I think it's similar to the way Antarctica is divided up.

Ever seen those ads selling real estate on the moon? The UN doesn't recognize it, but you could in the future, based on the treaty buy a patch of land on the moon if you want. I think.

Lol, those clowns can't sell real estate on the moon - because they don't own it. The UN treaty's are also bs. Just as the state is.

Just extending:


10. Why don't you just leave?

One could simply turn this around, and ask, "Why doesn't the State just leave?" The "love it or leave it" bromide begs the underlying question, who is entitled to occupy this space. Perhaps a hardcore statist would simply assume that the government rightfully owns everything, but anarcho-capitalists reject that assumption, given the State's history of conquest and plunder. We believe rightful property comes from homesteading and voluntary exchange, not conquest. A good anarcho-capitalist response may be, "The State doesn't rightfully own this property; people do."

[Mesogen]

Lol, those clowns can't sell real estate on the moon - because they don't own it.

Right. These things are sold as a "novelty." No one really believes that you "own" the land that you just bought the deed to. You get a "deed" and a photo pointing out the acre of land you own on the moon that you just bought for $20. Cute, huh?

[Conza88]

Yeah. Sometimes there are agreements to put a satellite into a space near another one in the same slot working on different frequencies. But I think some frequencies are just better than others for sending certain types of data using a certain amount of power. So you are kind of limited to which frequencies you would want to use.

But hey I didn't make the rules. :)

Just reading a bit more about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

Again, it comes down to who gets there first. Obviously someone can try risk it and try put their satellite in the same orbit.

If they fail and destroy the other satellite or even their own, or both - LOL, then that is one MIGHTY loss... :eek:

[Conza88]

Oh here are some more relevant Wiki links. I wouldn't use them for anything serious but they are a good starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate

All those fail and are founded on fallacies.

How We Become Owners by Robert LeFerve (http://mises.org/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=2231)

Also: Homesteading for Fun and Survival by Jeffrey A. Tucker and Manuel Lora (http://mises.org/story/2106)


In the Lockeo-libertarian tradition, homesteading is a means to establish an initial claim to a scarce resource. It consists of the exercise of purposeful action over nature. The resource is usually land, but it can extend to bodies of water and also animals.

One of the rules of homesteading is that you have to mix your labor with the resource if you are going to claim to own it. This is perfectly reasonable and intuitively correct. Christopher Columbus can't show up to North America and declare that he owns it all anymore than the first settler in space can claim to own the galaxy. The resource must be put to specific use by the claimant.

Today, we rarely see real homesteading in action because much of the land we see already has a legitimate owner. But we do observe many types of informal homesteading, the practice of which underscores the universality of the idea of ownership.

Let us consider a common example: a day at the beach. When people head to the beach, they bring chairs, set up umbrellas and roll out towels. Once their things are in order they have effectively homesteaded that area of the beach for as long as they stay. The area under their tutelage extends beyond the perimeter of their initial space.

Given cultural and density constraints, groups do not usually set up their belongings right next to one another. Rather, some breathing space is left for personal comfort and to allow others to walk between groups.

So how much space is legitimate? Imagine you are standing at the check out lane at the grocery store and the person in front of you turns around and says, "By the way, I am holding 10 spaces behind me."

The response would be: The heck you do!

How about if you are searching for a seat at a theater and are told by one person that he is holding an entire row for some friends who are late? Or what if some guy wants to prevent people from parking in a lot because he says he is using every space when there are no cars there?

In each case, we instinctively recognize the absurdity of those claims. Homesteading stands on solid ground yet its practical application can often be a gray area.

Continues... (read whole article) :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle_(ethics)
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/hoppeintro.asp

[hypnagogue]

I own the moon. I saw it first. Stop looking at my moon. Pricing plan coming shortly.

[heavenlyboy34]

I own the moon. I saw it first. Stop looking at my moon. Pricing plan coming shortly.

I first saw the moon 27 years ago. And you? ;)

[Uriel999]

I agree with Eddie Izzard's theory of ownership:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

:D

With that yes the United States owns the moon.

[xd9fan]

this thread is funny.

It reminds me when Pope John Paul (the great) went to Communist poland for the first time. He stepped off the plane....kissed the ground and said this land belongs to God Not Govt. That week the Poles saw how many if themseleves gathered.....and in IMHO the revolution started at the moment.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006523


Claim what you think you own....we are on borrowed time.

[Truth Warrior]

"The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", By Robert A. Heinlein

Highly recommended!!! ;)

The Philosophy of Ownership (http://americanrevival.org/read/books/ownership.pdf)
Robert LeFevre

Also highly recommended!!! ;)


( As a perhaps interesting aside, FWIW, Heinlein based the Professor Bernardo de la Paz character, in the book, on LeFevre. ;) :D )

[cheapseats]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6927395.stm


Russia plants flag under N Pole


The Mir-I is one of two Russian craft that dived to the Arctic floor
Russian explorers have planted their country's flag on the seabed 4,200m (14,000ft) below the North Pole to further Moscow's claims to the Arctic.
The rust-proof titanium metal flag was brought by explorers travelling in two mini-submarines, in what is believed to be the first expedition of its kind.

Both vessels have now rejoined the expedition's ships, completing their risky return journey to the surface.

Canada, which also claims territory in the Arctic, has criticised the mission.

"This isn't the 15th Century," Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay told the CTV channel.

"You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say 'We're claiming this territory'," he said.


Melting polar ice has led to competing claims over access to Arctic resources.


Russia's claim to a vast swathe of territory in the Arctic, thought to contain oil, gas and mineral reserves, has been challenged by several other powers, including the US.


...The Russian mission's leader, explorer and parliamentarian Artur Chilingarov, said the flag would be a permanent mark of Russia's presence at the pole...


"It's a very important move for Russia to demonstrate its potential in the Arctic... It's like putting a flag on the Moon." --Sergei Balyasnikov
Russian Arctic and Antarctic Institute


...Russian media reported last week that the ships were briefly tailed by foreign aircraft, but this claim was played down by the expedition leader...


...President Vladimir Putin has already described the urgent need for Russia to secure its "strategic, economic, scientific and defence interests" in the Arctic...


...Several countries with territories bordering the Arctic - including Russia, the US, Canada and Denmark - have launched competing claims to the region.

The competition has intensified as melting polar ice caps have opened up the possibility of new shipping routes in the region...


...The North Pole is not currently regarded as part of any single country's territory and is therefore administered by the International Seabed Authority.

[Andrew-Austin]

I haven't read the responses in this thread... But.. no.

If one simply passes through an undiscovered land region and does nto settle it... They do not own it. Merely touching base and leaving does not warrant a claim to land.

[nate895]

I haven't read the responses in this thread... But.. no.

If one simply passes through an undiscovered land region and does nto settle it... They do not own it. Merely touching base and leaving does not warrant a claim to land.

Depends, if you plant a flag and leave a note in a bottle claiming the territory, you have made an adequate claim to land (I don't think we have updated our international land claiming laws in ages).

[Uriel999]

Flags=ownership...just ask India :p