While purporting to offer the foundation for “morally-justified property rights in space,” Lowe’s proposal actually is an abrogation of property rights. In terms of essentials, her paper is founded on premises shared with the Left.
First, Lowe accepts the Left’s claim that space is a “celestial commons.” This gives rise to her plan to allow all nations to acquire moon land, not because of any actions on their part, but because they are a part of mankind.
Second, and most significantly, Lowe claims that the validity of property rights are subject to certain conditions, including:
- The urgent needs of an individual can help to justify their ownership of needed things;
- The urgent needs of an individual can invalidate another individual’s ownership of surplus things.
Lowe does not tell us what “surplus things” means, but she implies that it is anything more than what is required for sustenance and shelter. According to this framework, more productive individuals should not be allowed to keep their “surplus,” but must share their property with others. Those who produce more than they need have a duty to sacrifice for the less productive.
These conditions relegate property rights to temporary permissions that can be removed at any time. Like Leftists, Lowe argues that need supersedes ownership rights. She writes that,
If it becomes the case that someone in urgent need has the capability to access a piece of moon land that will serve to meet their needs, then their claim over that land will defeat the claim of someone who is not in urgent need…
According to Lowe, and the Left, need, not one’s actions, constitutes a valid claim to property. This is not a case for property rights. It is an argument for their destruction, and it is based on a shared premise with the Left. To the Left, an individual’s property and life belong to the collective, which may dispose of both as it chooses. Lowe agrees because of shared premises.
Lowe proposes that would-be Moon colonists compete for use of the land. They would pay “’rent’ into a fund that works to enable other individuals on Earth to compete against them for these plots.” In other words, those who actually create values in space must fund those who have not created values.
While Lowe calls her proposal an “individualistic framework,” her argument is founded on shared premises with the collectivist Left. The consequence of that premise is not property rights in space, but their annihilation.
The Property Rights in Space Series
3 comments
Comments are closed.