Will (does) anyone own the moon, mars, etc.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Community / Off Topic » Will (does) anyone own the moon, mars, etc. » Will (does) anyone own the moon, mars, etc.

Will (does) anyone own the moon, mars, etc.

Will (does) anyone own the moon, mars, etc.

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 07/23/09 - 08:00 PM: Subject: Will (does) anyone own the moon, mars, etc.	#1
Just had this thought today. Luna and Mars are of every growing interest, not just for exploration reasons, but also for things like mining resources. Like all unfounded continents in the past, is a person/country/company going to one day try and claim ownership of these bodies? Let's say a company begins mining the moon; does that mean, I too, could go and mine the exact same location? Will you have to pay to own land on the moon? Who would net the profits? Also on that note, how the hell does anyone have the right to sell or own a piece of land?
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 07/23/09 - 08:33 PM:	#2
It might seem that the U.S. owns the moon by virtue of being the first to land on it, but the States are signatories to a treaty forbidding governmental ownership of extraterrestrial real estate. A similar treaty exists for private ownership of such real estate, though the U.S. is not currently a signatory. There's a whole article regarding the matter on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 07/24/09 - 12:42 AM:	#3
Well, technically, the US wasn't the first to land on it, (what DO they teach in history these days). Soviets were there first and planted a flag there. In 1959, the US declared that planting a flag on the moon was only a symbolic gesture, like planting one on the top of a mountain, and did not claim ownership. That would require establishing a permanent base. The treaty mentioned would only be binding on the 98 countries that signed and ratified it, (those that still exist, anyway). There are people who claim to take advantage of the "loophole" that the treaty only refers to states to claim private ownership. You can contact some of those people and get a deed to some stretch of land. The treaty would include interests of nationals, so that would preclude ownership by any company established in one of the signatory countries. space law FAQ wrote: The Outer Space Treaty states that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried out by governmental agencies or non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the treaty. The Treaty further states that the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party. I guess there are lots of other loopholes. It wouldn't exclude someone whose company was established on the moon, for example, or someone declaring their independence from a state. There have been military and commercial enterprises in space -- remember the "Star Wars" space platform? I distinctly remember the US Air Force forming an official "US Space Force", but don't know what happened to that, (it was always under US Air Force Space Command, just like the Air Force. I think that if any nation, (or James Bond villain), put nuclear missiles on the moon, it would be really hard for anyone to enforce the treaty.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3285

Posted 07/24/09 - 12:50 AM:	#4
The moon belongs to the lunatics, as the earth does to the mundane.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 07/24/09 - 01:39 PM:	#5
swstephe wrote: Well, technically, the US wasn't the first to land on it, (what DO they teach in history these days). Soviets were there first and planted a flag there. There were no Soviets on the moon in 1959. As weird as any of us might find Western traditions to be, it has always been the case that -- at minimum -- a person had to get off the ship to claim land in the name of his (or his patron's) country. He couldn't just toss his trash on the shore. swstephe wrote: In 1959, the US declared that planting a flag on the moon was only a symbolic gesture, like planting one on the top of a mountain, and did not claim ownership. That would require establishing a permanent base. Again, that's all in accordance with Western tradition: first you stood somewhere and claimed it, then you started settling it (cf. Locke's labor theory of property). I was just addressing a common misconception that I have heard. Why you are attributing it to me, when I was debunking it, is rather mysterious. swstephe wrote: The treaty mentioned would only be binding on the 98 countries that signed and ratified it, (those that still exist, anyway). Well, obviously. That's why I mentioned that the U.S. is one of the signatories -- regardless of what rights it may or may not have had, the U.S. has officially renounced any claim to ownership of the Moon. swstephe wrote: There are people who claim to take advantage of the "loophole" that the treaty only refers to states to claim private ownership. Yup. Already mentioned the private ownership issue. unenlightened wrote: The moon belongs to the lunatics, as the earth does to the mundane. Fortunately, I have dual citizenship.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 07/25/09 - 01:08 AM:	#6
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: There were no Soviets on the moon in 1959. As weird as any of us might find Western traditions to be, it has always been the case that -- at minimum -- a person had to get off the ship to claim land in the name of his (or his patron's) country. He couldn't just toss his trash on the shore. Again, that's all in accordance with Western tradition: first you stood somewhere and claimed it, then you started settling it (cf. Locke's labor theory of property). I was just addressing a common misconception that I have heard. Why you are attributing it to me, when I was debunking it, is rather mysterious. I agree, to claim it, you have to be there. But you said "land", which is different than claiming it. Americans and Europeans can claim to have landed on Mars even though no humans were there. Sorry to be pendantic, but I notice a lot of Americans aren't even aware of what the "space race" was all about. Wikipedia wrote: A moon landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of a planet's natural satellite, and in this case, refers specifically to landings on the lunar surface of Earth's Moon. This includes both manned and unmanned (robotic) missions. Postmodern Beatnik wrote: That's why I mentioned that the U.S. is one of the signatories -- regardless of what rights it may or may not have had, the U.S. has officially renounced any claim to ownership of the Moon. Yup. Already mentioned the private ownership issue. I was just adding that private claims are also covered by the treaty. So you would have to claim registration in a non-signatory "state" to get away with the claim. I like to look into issues of micronations, which is why this interests me. It would be conceivable for someone to land on the moon, renounce citizenship and claim the entire moon as his own personal domain. Edited by swstephe on 07/25/09 - 01:13 AM
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

wholeminutia
Snapshot:Repaired Despair

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 06, 2009
Location: Over the Edge of the Universe

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 68

Posted 07/25/09 - 03:14 AM:	#7
If we take history as a precedent then the ones to own the Moon will be the ones with the power to 1)claim it, and 2)defend it. That's it.
Like God, I want to be heard--not seen.

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 07/25/09 - 05:31 AM:	#8
swstephe wrote: I agree, to claim it, you have to be there. But you said "land", which is different than claiming it. When debunking a common mythology, it is quite normal to use its language. "Land," in that context, means "land people." The Wikipedia quote is not quite appropriate as it offers a clarification of the article's scope, not a definition. swstephe wrote: Sorry to be pendantic, but I notice a lot of Americans aren't even aware of what the "space race" was all about. That's great, but maybe you should find out if you're talking to one of those Americans before being pedantic. Then you might not end up lecturing a historian about history. swstephe wrote: It would be conceivable for someone to land on the moon, renounce citizenship and claim the entire moon as his own personal domain. But as wholeminutia noted, that person would have to be able to defend it (both the claim and the territory). I suspect that there would be an awful lot of roadblocks for such a person. For one, the renunciation of citizenship could be rejected. Moreover, there is no embassy on the moon to officiate the renunciation, so it could not be done there; and it would become much harder to reach the moon without any sort of state sponsor. This might be different in the future, but I suspect laws about the moon will develop a lot faster once the ability to travel there improves. I also wouldn't be surprised to discover there was a means of keeping the matter in court until our hypothetical claimant died. And there's always the option of attacking -- especially if the claimant is stateless and can claim no protection by any laws.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.