Property Rights

Is there an Objectivist "rule" about acquiring property that doesn't belong to anyone at the moment you find it?

For example, would the first corporation that lands on the moon have exclusive rights to it?
Exactly how much new land are settlers allowed to take?

I imagine that it's as much as they can use that isn't used by anyone else when they found it. That sounds like the least arbitrary rule I can think of. Any comments anyone?

Post 1

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 8:22pm

Tommy: Unfortunately, your example of a corporation trying to exploit the moon is doomed to failure. The UN has got this covered, and Bush has averred that the U.S. effort is for "all mankind".

I was sight-seeing in New York in about 1966 and attended a UN debate. The subject was about how to preserve the moon from "exploitation".

Chronology of International Agreements Relevant to Space (Adobe Acrobat):

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/FALL2001/lecture40.pdf

IMO if O'ists decided to build a country from the sea floor they'd still have to go up against the UN and perhaps physically fight to maintain it. They'd say it was a hazard to navigation, blah, blah, blah. But behind it all would be the threat to their statist regimes by the "spectre" of freedom.

Post 2

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 8:32pm

The public status of the moon is certainly one extreme side of this issue that I think is bogus.

First, imagine all of that UN bullcrap never happened. My question is this: Suppose a corporation lands on the moon, and establishes a lunar base that uses only a small fraction of the moon's surface. Would other corporations have the right to land and take over other parts of the moon?

My position, once again, is yes they would have that right. I still feel that this is somehow arbitrary.

Post 3

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 5:43am

Here's another question I've been wondering.

Suppose roads were privatized. Could I build a road that encircles your property? I would not be violating your property rights (or would I?). Yet, every time you want to leave your property I could charge you an arm and a leg (literally, I could make you chop them off if you needed to leave that badly, and you'd have no choice).

I think that everyone needs access to a variety of competing services to survive, or at the very least, the ability to provide such services for themselves. How can this be done if one is "landlocked" by other property owners that refuse to let him leave?

Post 4

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:08am

So a corpration lands on the moon and claims it for itself (well its shareholders) what is the UN going to do about it? It can't even get its act together about Iraq. The corparation will just give the UN the finger and get on with establishing a settlement and exploiting the moon.

If others land on the moon they will need to negotiate terms and conditions, however given the hostile environment of the moon it would make sense for them to co-operate and thus improve their suvivability.

The future of space travel is with the private sector, NASA being a government agency is hopelessly inefficient. The figure of $600 billion was mentioned to get men on mars, if that amount of money was offerd to the first private corporation to do so I am sure it would happen within a decade.

Post 5

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:15am

Tommy as for your second question, I suspect that enclosing my property with a road and then charging an arm and a leg for me to use the road would be an initiation of force. You are enclosing my property and giving me no option but to use your road.

As for ones property being landlocked by other property owners, this has been dealt with in common law with the granting of such things as rights of way or easements.

Post 6

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:45am

As far as the moon and Mars goes-- why would the other corporations have to negotiate with the first? What right does the first corporation have to keep another corporation from using a plot of land entirely seperate from them?

Public right of ways make sense, but... are they completely consistent with property rights, considering it is a third party coming in and telling someone how to run their property?

Post 7

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 4:40pm