3 thoughts on “Space Property Rights”

  1. On the third hand, suppose a law written by people that conflicts with reality (pi equals 3.) The idiocy here is to try to make reality conform to law rather than the correct order of things.

    ‘Adverse possession’ is typical of the left’s desire to change words they don’t like… ‘squatters rights’ which has a negative connotation. Why did squatters rights exist? In part because of the principle that
    real property should be put to its highest and best use. This is the real benefit to all mankind, not the absurd “property (province) of all mankind” which just means it becomes the property of the regulators.

    “Tenancy in common” doesn’t resolve the issue at all. A corporation is a legal person meaning the property has just one owner as reality requires.

    Slash the Gordian knot. Property is owned (in all cases. The state should not be the owner.) Free trade is how you get best use. The important issue is land must be owned to be put to best use. Squatters rights only exist because of neglect of land.

    Give a whole planet to any person at random and they will sell pieces of it resulting in best use. Give it to government and it would be neglected.

    1. The term “adverse possession” has been around for a long time and has its origins in the common law. I’ve never thought of it as particularly partisan.

      I think we need to go back to the proper terminology in another respect: we need to talk about recognizing property rights, not granting them, for a couple of reasons. 1. It’s the right way to go about it, and 2. Recognition of property rights means that no national sovereignty is required to grant those rights, and then private ownership of property doesn’t run afoul of Article II of the Outer Space Treaty.

      1. The term “adverse possession” has been around for a long time and has its origins in the common law.

        Of course true. My point is the term ‘squatter’s rights’ has become almost unmentionable, because it does tend to highlight the fact that title to land can be lost via neglect where ‘adverse possession’ does much less so.

        we need to talk about recognizing property rights, not granting them

        You nailed it, Laura.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *