Talk:Extraterrestrial real estate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Auction Discussion
what does everyone think of this?
- It's an apparently real auction, but I have several reasons not to bid:
why would anybody want to buy space? it's vacant there's nothing out there!
[edit] Storage of large objects
Well you never know when you might need to store a large object, eh?! THE KING 15:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The article
A few points. First, the title is rather clumsy and informal; any suggestions? Secondly, there was very ephemeral link to an ebay auction; better would be a link to a rather more permanent page. Thirdly (and related to the first point), the article deals with selling parts of space and plots on planets and satellites. Fourthly, it's rather vague; more detail is needed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Re the ebay article, ebay items last for about 3 months after they expire i think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.194.13.106 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 30 May 2005.
- What does ephemeral mean? if its 'short term, will dissapear quickly' then i suggest restoring the ebay link as per anon's comment above. else ok, point taken re the link. THE KING 05:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
In the context of an encyclopædia, three months is pretty ephemeral. How about my other points, though? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- With regards your other points, {{gofixit}}. THE KING 12:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
You mean that you refuse to offer suggestions or to respond? How very collaborative. Still, it's good to know that you have no interest in the issues, so won't object no matter what I decide to do. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- How very negative as always, mel. Of course i am interested in the issue or i wouldn't write about it. And yes, i will continue to update and improve it as i see fit, but i do not 'refuse to offer any suggestions or respond'. My suggestion, as is my policy on wikipedia, is that if there is a problem with an article, then fix it. At the same time, i agree with a number of points you've raised, and thank you for bringing them to the communities attention. It seems you have support to go ahead and make the necessary changes. THE KING 05:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Mel, i have copyedited and wikified to the best of my ability. Also attempted clarification of some of the more vauge aspects of the article as described in your original comment. Hope this satisfies - THE KING 08:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- haha looks like that link @ the top of this page was pretty ephemeral. it got cancelled by ebay. THE KING 10:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article is still in need of wikification and copy-editing. The title, though, is more difficult. I'm placing it on RfC in order to get other opinions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- FFS mel i dont know what you want done about it! do it yourself if you're so cut up about it, but i think its fine, so will be removing those tags soon. THE KING 16:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RfC
- How about Selling land on space? --cesarb 16:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps Selling land in space, but the article also deals with selling bits of empty space rather than land. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- How about Extraterrestrial real-estate sales or Extraterrestrial land sales? --Carnildo 18:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Extra-terrestrial real estate sounds a good bet. Would anyone object if I moved the article to that new title? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, mel. Obviously a redirect from selling space will be necessary. THE KING 16:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Extra-terrestrial real estate sounds a good bet. Would anyone object if I moved the article to that new title? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The redirect is automatic.
- Don't remove the "wikify" and "copyedit" template without doing anything else to the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Don't put them on there without explaining whats wrong with the article, or fixing it. You seem to think i'm some kind of terrorsist mel, stop being so negative. THE KING 07:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The "wikify" template has a link to an explanation of how articles should be presented; a dictionary and grammar text would help with the "copyedit" template. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I came here from RFC and was going to suggest Extra-terrestrial real estate, but I see that the suggestion has already been made, and the article moved. If there are no objections to this change, the note at WP:RFC should be removed. BlankVerse ∅ 12:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thansk for reminding me — it's done. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What "issue"?
We read: The controvertial [sic] issue of whether it is legal, ethical or even possible to sell land and space in outer space has now arisen.
Where, other than on some deleted auction at eBay, has it arisen?
I don't say that it hasn't arisen, and certainly not that it won't arise. I have an open mind on this. Please educate me.
In the absence such an assurance that this has arisen, I'm inclined to think of this as merely a way in which the greatest fools might be deprived of their money. It's more ludicrous than talk of selling the Brooklyn Bridge, as it's plausible that some entity might own and be able to sell a bridge. -- Hoary 12:21, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
- The eBay sale is irrelevant, I think; anyone can stick anything on eBay (someone recently put my College up for sale), so I've deleted that reference. There are organisations that sell land on the Moon, though, and I believe that they've extended this to other planets; I've added a link to what I think is the first (or, at least, the main) organisation of this kind. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that the "purportedly" is needed in the links section; if, for example, what they're doing is thought to be illegal, it's because they're selling what isn't theirs — I'm not sure that there's a law against purportedly selling what isn't yours. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- True, but what about its fantastical nature? When you (my better-off friend) and I are both in the pub and drunk, and I offer to sell you Pluto (complete with Charon) for another pint of Brakspear, you take me up on it and I write out a paper stating your ownership, have I sold you Pluto? -- Hoary 11:09, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
If I hand over the money, then yes — and you're guilty of selling me what doesn't belong to you. I realise that this is largely a matter of terminology, but I think that it complicates and obscures matters to scatter qualifications throughout the article as though we're on Have I Got News for You and trying to avoid law-suits... The extra links that you find do the job, I think (not to mention the text of the article). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merging with Moon for sale
I suggest Moon for sale being merged in this article Virgiliu - they deal with exactly the same topic.
- Support but I'm leery that the revert wars recently experienced in the Moon for sale article will spill over into the new article. This article appears to be more well-written than the Moon for sale article but there are some good sections that could be added from the Moon for sale article, particularly some of the sources/references. --ElKevbo 01:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Semi-protected tag
The {{sprotected}} tag was added to this page, but the page was not actually protected. If the page should be protected for some reason, please list it on WP:RFPP. [[User:S
[edit] some suggestions
Hello.
Having followed this and other discussions on the subject with much interest as we have been studying the subject of property rights in space and on the Moon for now more than 15 years, we are in high gratefulness and agreement that this article has been placed in the "under dispute" category.
We would like to make several suggestions for improvements.
1. The first paragraph says:
Current: Such sales are not legally recognised by any nation, and are therefore often fraudulent.
The second part of the sentence is incorrect. The second part of the sentence is not implied by the first.
Will you *please* refrain from calling something fraudulent until it has been shown to be the case? It is incorrect to call something fraudulent given the fact that it is not against the law and there is no law against it.
Many legal space experts agree that in this case, this is so.
Just because nations have decided not to recognize something does not make it fraudulent.
"Absence of the law" is not equal to "illegal".
Law does not work on the premise that something is illegal if it is not mentioned. International law is based on quite the opposite: that actions are legal until declared illegal.
If everything we do would have to be declared legal first, we think we would end up not doing much in life...never mind reproduce.. :)
Proposal change to: Such sales are not legally recognised by any nation, however many nations and Nasa have recognised the need for regulation of property rights in space due to the absence of such law.
Note: The Outer Space Treaty has done nothing to establish who owns the Moon or the other planets. All it did do is establish who does not own it, i.e. all the governments of this planet, as well as the fact that there is a marked absence of laws on the Moon. The governments that have ratified this Treaty have reliquished their jurisdiction of these territories.
It even goes further to say that the Moon is the heritage of all mankind, making the Moon by far more the publics property than anything else (oh we see and noooow the governments want to change their mind? A bit hard.).
Your article correctly argues that generally Space Experts agree that for someone to claim the Moon or other celestial bodies, he should exercise some degree of as it says "control" or "intent to occupy" over the territories in question.
Well, it certainly looks like from here that the people of earth, and 1.8 Million lunar property customers worldwide are doing exactly that, within the boundaries of their financial and military means, by purchasing lunar property and forming public opinion.
Everyone in this discussion knows that the Moon Treaty attempted to fill the "private ownership gap" by explicitly addressing private ownership, and in vain as it was not ratified in the UN (by now three times in a row). This should be better mentioned.
Especially the USA decided not to sign it as it would "deny private ownership and exploitation of lunar resources for profit motives". The USA said at the time that they would like to wait and see "how public opinion develops", and alas, it has. This is well documented history at the UN.
So the questions the lunar realtors (and space experts) have therefore very well raised (we the public are grateful) are that
(a) the question of property rights in space and on the Moon must be formally addressed as they are not clear, and the lunar realtors have recognized this 26 years (at least since 1980) before anyone else who hopes to reap profit from Earth orbits or Lunar developments these days (see also the Hilton Group, Hotel in Orbit, Paris Hilton, Richard Branson, Virgin One orbital flight, China.).
As well as that
(b) the rights of the public must be correctly represented in such a debate, or a bunch of corporate minded well financed people will just simply decide its all theirs, simply because they can afford to go there, and you, Mr. X Y Z in the street, can not.
To many space experts, lunar realtors and their clients this is a vision that is unacceptable.
Its time to defend the rights of the public to own a property on the Moon and the other planets.
Just yesterday, even Nasa confirmed publicly on MSNBC ABC News and CNN that Lunar Property rights have yet to be established (see here). David Beatty of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory said an international legal framework would be helpful in the area of property rights.
(We also hear that many NASA employees have purchased lunar plots; which is interesting to say the least. As we can see, even they are not putting their money on the government to win this debate..)
Lets just hope the USA don't do the same thing as was done with the Indians so long ago; shooting people that don't agree with you is these days just too easy; (see also Iraq, the definition of the word Insurgent as well as Freedom of Speech?). :( .
If the USA and other countries first relinquish their jurisdiction and sovereinigty of these territories via the "Outer Space Treaty", they should now not turn around and try to reclaim that, which they have given to all mankind, just because in retrospect they find that money may be involved.
The rights of any individual to own a lunar or extraterrestrial property are more important that the profit motives of a few wealthy individuals in the upper echelons of power.
In other words: The USA cannot have their cake and eat it too.
Further, it is by now obvious that it is absolutely crucial that the public opinion, which is very present, should be represented adequately when such property rights are discussed and dealt with.
That is the real issue lunar activists and lunar realtors worldwide are attempting to address and draw attention to and alas they are succeeding thankfully.
One should further be very careful to ignore the realtors and their clients by the way; by now they are a "small club" of "only" over 800'000 people making them the largest advocate group in history, even surpassing in size the second largest membership organisation, i.e. the World Wide Star Trek fan club.
2.
Current: as stated by the United Nations "Outer Space Treaty", space is the "domain of all mankind", and therefore not available for private ownership.
The second part of this phrase is incorrect and as many Space Experts agree, the jury is very much still out on whether space is available for private ownership or not. If what you state were true, the drafting of the Moon Treaty would not have been necessary.
In fact, many Space Experts agree that lunar laws that must first be established should be modelled on Earth law and when that happens which will hopefully be soon, (although no one has jurisdiction to do it anymore by their own treaties), in that case however if any agreement is reached, lunar property private ownership will very well become possible. (Note that any legal expert will tell you that our terrestrial laws stop at an altitude of 80km.)
The Outer Space Treaty only says that no GOVERNMENT can own space, and the Moon Treaty was supposed to stuff the hole of private ownership that the "Outer Space Treaty" did not legally cover.
Proposal change to: It is generally accepted that, as stated by the United Nations "Outer Space Treaty", space is the "domain of all mankind", and can no loner be claimed by any governments. It explicitly though omits mentioning private individuals. or Proposal change to: space is the "domain of all mankind".
3. But lets get back to that Outer Space Treaty. All it has done is relinquish the rights of all governments and there is legal precedent for that.
4-5 years ago, a lunar realtor in Europe was
[edit] From the Owner of Orion's Belt
You might want to watch the newscast I attached as a link. It has Glenn Reynolds on it. I was sarcastic on the newscast, but three years later I'm still working on it. I didn't make my claim for any kind of financial profit, either. I've registered my claim in ways that nobody else has thought of. I can't tell you all the details yet, because I'm not done. Just know this: Out of all the people who have ever made space claims, I will be the one who makes a friggin' dent in the annals of history. Just watch.
People like you are killing space and earth for the matter. Don't be like the first American settlers. MC John 03:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What does this mean?
In 'extraterrestrial claims,' there's a sentence that begins, "Next year, the Red Planet was claimed by the Western Federation Church and Tribe." Uh, what? Next year? Was? --Masamage 05:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I just edited the line to start "In 1998" and to link out to the WFC&T website... which apparently claims dominion over the Moon, THE RED PLANET "MARS" (their phrasing), and I think a bunch of other extraterrestrial real estate. .... I'm trying very hard to treat this with due reference and objectivity and neutrality and all, but the situation amuses me enough that I'll choose to think that leaving it as "the Red Planet" doesn't give the line a condescending or derisive tone. Especially since that's the way the group phrases it themselves. --Speaker59 199.103.21.225 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Philosophy of ownership
It's quite an amusing subject, but nevertheless quite upsetting to think there are numerous conmen who are actually making money from it. It's perhaps more upsetting to think there are people stupid enough to 'buy' extra-terrestrial real-estate. It cannot be done. Philosophically speaking, there are blurry lines around the whole concept of ownership (and everything else for that matter). I don't own the body I travel around in, but I think I have the best 'claim of ownership', even if it may not be the earliest claim. In most countries on Earth, my claim would be officially recognised, but that does not make it universally official.
If you think you own the moon (or anything for that matter), you have to think about how and where you would defend your claim. My body claim is based on the belief that I am the person who uses it most, am the person who keeps it alive and am the person who will disappear when it dies. It's a good claim. And if anyone else challenges my claim, I would probably successfully defend my claim in most courts of law. At least those on this planet, if not those on all of the planets which pre-evolved us and claimed ownership of this solar system millions of years ago.
When buying a certificate of ownership of a piece of E.T. R.E., the 'buyer' is merely buying a claim. Who would do that if they knew they could claim it for free? Everyone can claim ownership of anything they want, but not every claim can be satisfactorily defended. Tomid 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It all comes to this. Can you defend your claim? Preferably with extreme force if necessary, or you have a close friend with the force to defend your claimed property. If you can defend it or otherwise discourage others from claiming it as well or persuade them not to, then it is yours...its the way the world works these days, perhaps someday it will be different. Someone can claim something or a piece of land or space, it can be all theirs in the law books and on all the pieces of paper people have made, but if you have the force it can effectively be all yours and their claims on pieces of paper are worth nothing. We have set up a system of private property ownership in this world for good or bad, and the basic tenants to this are being able to forcibly hold that property, we have allocated the majority of the heavy force to governments we have created, therefore governments determine who owns what, thru laws they establish or other means, as they supply the force to back up someones claim. My great grandfather for instance had claim to land in Las Vegas, it was all legal, no one disputed this, he had been the owner for a long time, the government one day decided it needed this land for its purposes, so he had no choice but to sell it to them at the price they set, or else use force to defend his claim his government once recognized, perhaps if he had had an equal amount of force of the US government, he would have refused and we would have seen a showdown or something, as he didnt have the force inherent to a nation-state, he simply sold the land at the price they set...PS: of course you dont necessarily need violent force to defend something, there are other ways, there are other ways of affecting others so they are "forced" to acknowledge and respect your claim, yet you basically need some sort of power over them that can negatively affect them if they dont respect your claim, or positively affect them if they do respect it 83.79.137.123 23:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
one of the most fundamental reasonings for nation-states, was to group several people together, to increase the amount of force they could muster to defend private property rights...83.79.137.123 23:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Real issues
How is contention over spots in the valuable geostationary satellite orbit settled? Has this ever come up in any sense other than scam artists? I'd find it hard to believe there's never been any real arguments over it. Gigs 15:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently allocation of slots is managed by the ITU. There's a discussion at http://www.uni.edu/ihsmun/resources/GUIDES/Orbitals.htm, and also various statements at the ITU site (http://www.itu.int). I think it's definitely worth a mention in this article if anyone has the inclination. Matt 01:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC).
-
- I added a sentence to the article just to note this issue. Perhaps it could be expanded into something a bit more informative by someone knowledgable about the subject. Matt 14:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Removal of "neutrality disputed" banner
I have removed the "neutrality disputed" banner, which was added some time ago, as it is not now clear from the talk page what, if anything, is still being disputed. A number of points seem to have been resolved, and various suggestions to change the wording seem to have been implemented. If anyone wants to reinstate the banner then it would be useful to add a new section here summarising what is still perceived to be a problem with the neutrality. Matt 11:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Dennis Hope Re-direct
Doesn't belong as a redirect. There should be a redirect link on a page devoted to him. --Chalyres 08:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
