In 1967, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union signed the Outer Space Treaty. While the treaty states that no country can claim sovereignty over outer space or any celestial body, it says nothing about what individuals may do. With a growing number of private companies making successful launches into space, pundits and organizations are speaking up about property rights in space. Unfortunately, the debate is dominated by a false framework.
The Adam Smith Institute recently released a paper titled Space Invaders: Property Rights on the Moon. Written by Rebecca Lowe, a consultant and former director of the FREER think tank, the paper promises to provide the foundation for “morally-justified property rights in space.” Unfortunately, it fails to do so. Instead, what it proposes is not the protection of property rights, but their complete abrogation.
Lowe states that her paper follows a “Lockean-inspired rights-based liberal viewpoint.” Despite this claim, she rejects one of the key ideas in Locke’s defense of private property. She writes that a problem with a ‘first come first served’ approach is that it offends against the particular principle of equality that is prized by classical liberals.” In agreement with the Left, she states that the wealthy will be better able to be first to explore and exploit space. And this is unfair.
Rather than allow individuals to claim ownership through the use of land on the Moon, she proposes that all nations be allowed to acquire ownership of Moon land. Each country would then decide how that land could be used and if/how individuals could acquire ownership.
Lowe embraces Locke’s proviso that individuals can claim natural resources as their own property, so long as ” there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” When it comes to property, Locke has many virtues, but this is not one of them.
Locke doesn’t specify what is meant by “as good.” Nature’s resources are not distributed equally. Some land has fertile soil, contains valuable minerals, and has access to water, and some land has none of these resources. An individual who acquires a better parcel of land is not leaving “as good” for others. It is metaphysically impossible to leave “enough and as good” for others.
Further, the idea of “as good” depends upon an individual’s values. One person may value access to water more than the presence of minerals and vice versa. Any rational discussion of “as good” requires recognition of the diversity of human values.
Lowe writes that her “framework depends on the idea that all human beings have the equal potential right to acquire space land.” Lowe’s proposal ostensibly provides individuals with an opportunity to exercise that right. Morally, all human beings already possess that right. Whether or how we exercise that right depends upon our own ambition, creativity, and resources.
Because it is founded on a false framework, this is not a defense of property rights in space. It is a mechanism to arbitrarily distribute Moon land, regardless of what individuals or nations have done to earn it. It ignores the nature and source of property. Property is not created by international treaties. Property comes into being by using natural resources to create values. Lowe’s proposal does not protect the individual’s freedom to produce and trade, i.e., the right to property.
In terms of essentials, Lowe’s proposal agrees with the collective ownership proposed by the Left. And the reason for that agreement is her embrace of the same moral framework as the Left.
The Property Rights in Space Series
6 comments
Comments are closed.