It is worth a read, for sure. The main contention is that it is not necessary for any sovereign to claim ownership on an extraterrestrial body in order for the property rights on that body to be protected. The paper is a direct shot at Virgiliu Pop’s 2000 paper “Appropriation in Outer Space: The Relationship between Land Ownership and Sovereignty on Celestial Bodies.” (The Cato paper also refers in passing to “Homesteading the Final Frontier” by some nerd.)
This is illustrated by showing that private interactions in the absence of a sovereign do not constitute the classical Prisoners’ Dilemma. There is communication between the parties, and communication between the parties involved and outside observers. Since there is the possibility of future transactions with not only the currently involved parties but also the outside observers, all those involved behave honestly so as to secure those future transactions: reputation matters.
In the event of disputes, it is suggested that international trade disputes have for centuries been resolved by independent private arbitration. Parties which enter into extraterrestrial agreements will include this dispute resolution mechanism in their contracts, just as is the case for international contracts today.
The coup de grâce: since the 1958 New York Convention, many sovereign nations will enforce these private international dispute mechanisms, but there is no supranational sovereign to force those sovereign nations to do so.
He seems to take it even a step farther then just you do not need a sovereign nation to make a claim. He says you do not even need a sovereign to acknowledge and inforce a claim. Almost a self sustaining system where it will always be in everyone’s self interest to aknowledge others property rights claims.
I am sure you have read John Locke but always good reading when considering natural rights.
John Locke, a brilliant philosopher of any time (but still of his time) made an observation that over complicates the matter. It is fundamentally much simpler. Ownership is about the ability to defend that ownership. If it can be taken away, even in little bits, you do not own it.
The problem today is nobody understands what defending it means and assumes it’s whatever the government or lawyers tell you and that has never been the entire case. We quote ‘9 tenth of the law’ yet have no idea what that means or where it came from. Possession is ownership for the most part.
Law can support ownership, but it is a two edge sword. They defend and take away all at the same time. Self enforcement is legal. It’s the foundation of legal. It’s the historical precedent.
But we now have a government which thinks they give you rights and can’t even spell inalienable. This is doom for the next generation. This is the softer side of fascism. It can only get worse. It can only be fixed on a frontier with educated pioneers.
Well, almost. The system is self-sustaining if the participants are concerned with future transactions. If it’s a one-shot deal where neither is interested in future deals, then we’re back to the Prisoner’s Dilemma; in such a scenario, reputation doesn’t matter. And presumably such a situation would be rare.
Decades ago the Prisoner’s Dilemma was thesis material, but now it should be fundamental grade school stuff. Hey, I think game theory should be taught in middle school (what we used to call jr. high.) But they can’t even teach math and reading so maybe generations back (when calculus was taught to Jules Verne’s grade school kids?) they were just smarter somehow? Or adults cared?
Future transactions are the point (unless human’s not having a future is the point? Perhaps that’s my blind spot?) I think the solar system is the future.
I’ll have more to say after I’ve read the paper because you know this is dear to my heart, but think of this…
How did land come to be in anybody’s possession when there were no sovereigns?
Simberg 2012 is cited. Now ya HAVE to read it.
Ken Anthony wrote:
Ownership is about the ability to defend that ownership. If it can be taken away, even in little bits, you do not own it.
A good description of defacto or pragmatic ownership. It unfortunately also recognizes ownership by a pirate of what he can take and keep. I also recognize a moral ownership based on “work of the hand” and “sweat of the brow”.
I expect many of us here recognize sound property rights as an important ingredient in America’s former growth in prosperity, and equally necessary for economic development of a new frontier.
The thinking if focused on real estate and mining rights, but I think another interesting eventuality is the case where vast distance will make some kinds transactions impossible, and thus some intellectual property rights unenforceable and void.
For a simple example, a colony ship sets off for a distant world. The colonization might make use of any patent or copyright in the archives, yet which ones won’t be known beforehand, so no licenses, fees, or payments can be made before setting out. Yet upon arrival, decades or centuries later and out of all contact with Earth, there’s no way to make any payments for the use of any of that intellectual property. Essentially, all the songs, movies, and writings brought from Earth will be in the public domain.
The one big hole in the Cato paper is that it doesn’t address piracy. Presumably a private security force like Pinkerton would become involved.
Security only becomes involved if it need to and to an appropriate level. The point is you don’t need much from actual pirates. It’s government pirates that don’t have the decency of a regular pirate that is the biggest concern.
They’ve got the game rigged so what they say is truth when it is not at all.
It unfortunately also recognizes ownership by a pirate
Only if there were no such thing as theft. But there is such a thing. While possessed the pirate is exercising ownership but we can all recognise this as illegitimate and subject to correction. However if nobody asserts thier ownership rights, in time, in could become the legitimate property of the pirate.
With I.P. you’ve got another problem. The creator of the i.P. now becomes the enforcer of what exist in other people’s minds which most recognize as their own property… mind control usually being considered bad.
I.P. isn’t quite as messy if you look at it as owning not the idea but certain public uses of the idea. The idea of owning an idea itself is trouble, but all too common among those asserting strong I.P. “rights”. But that doesn’t answer what scope, duration, and means the community should support / tolerate the I.P. owner asserting.
Even our founders agreed in I.P. I do not. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect it as such. I just think it’s typical government going overboard. It sounds right so it must be… the road to serfdom.
It is worth a read, for sure. The main contention is that it is not necessary for any sovereign to claim ownership on an extraterrestrial body in order for the property rights on that body to be protected. The paper is a direct shot at Virgiliu Pop’s 2000 paper “Appropriation in Outer Space: The Relationship between Land Ownership and Sovereignty on Celestial Bodies.” (The Cato paper also refers in passing to “Homesteading the Final Frontier” by some nerd.)
This is illustrated by showing that private interactions in the absence of a sovereign do not constitute the classical Prisoners’ Dilemma. There is communication between the parties, and communication between the parties involved and outside observers. Since there is the possibility of future transactions with not only the currently involved parties but also the outside observers, all those involved behave honestly so as to secure those future transactions: reputation matters.
In the event of disputes, it is suggested that international trade disputes have for centuries been resolved by independent private arbitration. Parties which enter into extraterrestrial agreements will include this dispute resolution mechanism in their contracts, just as is the case for international contracts today.
The coup de grâce: since the 1958 New York Convention, many sovereign nations will enforce these private international dispute mechanisms, but there is no supranational sovereign to force those sovereign nations to do so.
He seems to take it even a step farther then just you do not need a sovereign nation to make a claim. He says you do not even need a sovereign to acknowledge and inforce a claim. Almost a self sustaining system where it will always be in everyone’s self interest to aknowledge others property rights claims.
Yes Vlad, you do not need government to give you inalienable rights. They pre-exist. I still haven’t put my thoughts together on this yet. I’m working on it.
I am sure you have read John Locke but always good reading when considering natural rights.
John Locke, a brilliant philosopher of any time (but still of his time) made an observation that over complicates the matter. It is fundamentally much simpler. Ownership is about the ability to defend that ownership. If it can be taken away, even in little bits, you do not own it.
The problem today is nobody understands what defending it means and assumes it’s whatever the government or lawyers tell you and that has never been the entire case. We quote ‘9 tenth of the law’ yet have no idea what that means or where it came from. Possession is ownership for the most part.
Law can support ownership, but it is a two edge sword. They defend and take away all at the same time. Self enforcement is legal. It’s the foundation of legal. It’s the historical precedent.
But we now have a government which thinks they give you rights and can’t even spell inalienable. This is doom for the next generation. This is the softer side of fascism. It can only get worse. It can only be fixed on a frontier with educated pioneers.
Well, almost. The system is self-sustaining if the participants are concerned with future transactions. If it’s a one-shot deal where neither is interested in future deals, then we’re back to the Prisoner’s Dilemma; in such a scenario, reputation doesn’t matter. And presumably such a situation would be rare.
Decades ago the Prisoner’s Dilemma was thesis material, but now it should be fundamental grade school stuff. Hey, I think game theory should be taught in middle school (what we used to call jr. high.) But they can’t even teach math and reading so maybe generations back (when calculus was taught to Jules Verne’s grade school kids?) they were just smarter somehow? Or adults cared?
Future transactions are the point (unless human’s not having a future is the point? Perhaps that’s my blind spot?) I think the solar system is the future.
I’ll have more to say after I’ve read the paper because you know this is dear to my heart, but think of this…
How did land come to be in anybody’s possession when there were no sovereigns?
Simberg 2012 is cited. Now ya HAVE to read it.
Ken Anthony wrote:
A good description of defacto or pragmatic ownership. It unfortunately also recognizes ownership by a pirate of what he can take and keep. I also recognize a moral ownership based on “work of the hand” and “sweat of the brow”.
I expect many of us here recognize sound property rights as an important ingredient in America’s former growth in prosperity, and equally necessary for economic development of a new frontier.
The thinking if focused on real estate and mining rights, but I think another interesting eventuality is the case where vast distance will make some kinds transactions impossible, and thus some intellectual property rights unenforceable and void.
For a simple example, a colony ship sets off for a distant world. The colonization might make use of any patent or copyright in the archives, yet which ones won’t be known beforehand, so no licenses, fees, or payments can be made before setting out. Yet upon arrival, decades or centuries later and out of all contact with Earth, there’s no way to make any payments for the use of any of that intellectual property. Essentially, all the songs, movies, and writings brought from Earth will be in the public domain.
The one big hole in the Cato paper is that it doesn’t address piracy. Presumably a private security force like Pinkerton would become involved.
Security only becomes involved if it need to and to an appropriate level. The point is you don’t need much from actual pirates. It’s government pirates that don’t have the decency of a regular pirate that is the biggest concern.
They’ve got the game rigged so what they say is truth when it is not at all.
It unfortunately also recognizes ownership by a pirate
Only if there were no such thing as theft. But there is such a thing. While possessed the pirate is exercising ownership but we can all recognise this as illegitimate and subject to correction. However if nobody asserts thier ownership rights, in time, in could become the legitimate property of the pirate.
With I.P. you’ve got another problem. The creator of the i.P. now becomes the enforcer of what exist in other people’s minds which most recognize as their own property… mind control usually being considered bad.
I.P. isn’t quite as messy if you look at it as owning not the idea but certain public uses of the idea. The idea of owning an idea itself is trouble, but all too common among those asserting strong I.P. “rights”. But that doesn’t answer what scope, duration, and means the community should support / tolerate the I.P. owner asserting.
Even our founders agreed in I.P. I do not. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect it as such. I just think it’s typical government going overboard. It sounds right so it must be… the road to serfdom.