Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space It's funny. Laugh. Science

Orbdev Files US Federal Suit Over Asteroid Claim 733

Posted by simoniker from the where-were-the-parking-meters? dept.
chongo writes "Orbital Development has filed legal action against the United States by filing a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in Federal Court. After NASA's NEAR probe landed on the asteroid 433 Eros, Gregory W. Nemitz, who claims to have owned the asteroid since the 3rd of March 2000, sent NASA an $20 invoice for the first 100 years of parking and storage fees. NASA told him to "pound sand". OrbDev's Eros Project seeks to promote their ludicrous ideas about property rights in space."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Orbdev Files US Federal Suit Over Asteroid Claim More

Orbdev Files US Federal Suit Over Asteroid Claim

Comments Filter:

  • Show us the homestead! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Allen Varney ( 449382 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:16AM (#7461969) Homepage

    If that asteroid were in Texas, the guy wouldn't be able to collect rent unless he'd lived there at least a year.

    (Yes, I made that up.)

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:16AM (#7461971)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • THis has to be a joke (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:18AM (#7461980)
    Right? Or maybe something like Stranger in a Strange Land, where they sue for ownership of Mars but really want to be denied and set the precedent.

    • Sorry, wrong story. You're thinking of the Heinlein classic The Man Who Sold the Moon [amazon.com] , not Stranger in a Strange Land [amazon.com] .

  • Responsibility people. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hexydes ( 705837 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:19AM (#7461987)
    If someone's asteroid crashes into the Earth, are they held responsible?

    What is the fine this sort of a thing?

  • Markers? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:20AM (#7461989) Journal
    Pointing to a bright light in the sky and saying "mine" doesn't make it so.

    Did OrbDev fly up there to mark the boundaries of their claim? Somehow, I think not.

    Good luck in enforcing that.
    • But sending NASA an invoice that they pay might....

      Luckily the clerk wasn't asleep and NASA didn't actually pay.

    • No right to property, just defence of. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Morgaine ( 4316 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:37AM (#7462749)
      Pointing doesn't give you property, but nor do physical markers, government laws, planetary authorizations, galactic leases or anything else.

      Your property is what you can hold on to, and anything else is just hot air and handwaving.

      Hot air and handwaving aren't necessarily worthless, because after all they reduce the pain and suffering in what we loosely call civilization, but to believe that rights have any fundamental substance is simply a delusion. The fact that those delusions are often imposed by force just proves the point.

      It all boils down to what you can defend, and nothing more.

    • Obligatory Eddie Izzard quote (but relevent :) (Score:5, Funny)

      by h4rm0ny ( 722443 ) * on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:21AM (#7463187) Journal
      "Do you have a flag? If you don't have a flag it's not yours."

      This reminds me of that Eddie Izzard routine where the Europeans are seizing land from the Indians. After telling them repeatedly that they're not a nation and it's not their land unless they have a flag, the Indians go off and make themselves a flag. When they come back the English say... "Good - do you have a gun?" The Indians are... "Ooooh - you need a GUN and a flag." Sorry but this chap can wave around whatever bits of paper (and make as many flags) as he likes, but unless he has a 'gun' with which to threaten the government, it isn't going to work.

      Of course, Terran property rights ultimately come down to who has the most guns too, but people forget that (unless they're Iraqi.)

    • Re:Markers? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Slime-dogg ( 120473 )

      Most people are going to be stupid and point at a star that is really far away. When they "claim" it as theirs, they'll have to understand the fact that their star may have burned itself out already.

      Asteroids and those smaller things are fairly difficult to see with the naked eye.

  • Hmmm.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:20AM (#7461990)

    Gregory W. Nemitz
    Address: 8301-252 Mission Gorge Road, Santee, Calif. 92071 USA
    Tel: 775-450-6144
    Fax: 413-460-6480
    Email: gnemitz@orbdev.com

    Of course, this is all public information, and obviously I'm not encouraging anyone to contact or harrass Mr. Nemitz.

    • I just phoned him.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by SoVi3t ( 633947 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:45AM (#7462088)
      ...and he threatened to crash his asteroid into my house. Not exactly how I hoped it would go.

    • Call the IRS... (Score:5, Funny)

      by umofomia ( 639418 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:14AM (#7462191) Journal
      If this guy is going to claim that this is his property, he better start paying taxes for it. Gee... Mr. Nemitz, how much did you say it's worth?

      Typically iron found in Space is contaminated with platinium, normally by about .005 or one-half of one percent. Assuming that 433 Eros is only 5% iron, there are 22.5 billion tons of platinium on the asteroid. The current price for platinium is about $750 per troy ounce. There are 29,167 troy ounces per short ton for a total 656,250,000,000,000 troy ounces. At today's price, that is $492,187,500,000,000,000 (~1/2 quintillion dollars).

      Thanks for calculating it for us... now pay up. :)

  • Do you want a property on the moon? (Score:3, Funny)

    by little1973 ( 467075 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:20AM (#7461991)
    Then just go here. [moonshop.com]

  • He's in MY universe (Score:5, Funny)

    by SoVi3t ( 633947 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:21AM (#7461995)
    And I charge $100 bucks a week for rent. Me thinks he owes me quite a bit of back rent.
  • This is space we are talking about, so if you land on it, or can show that you can land on it, then the property is yours.

    So, by this proposal, the only one able to claim ownership would be the United States Government.

    But, the second half of my proposal would allow a large company to "lay claim" to a resource in space, if they could prove (ie put forth plans and such) that they can get to the asteroid to do whatever they need to do with it.

    This would allow companies to make money, and not have the "fast
    • But, the second half of my proposal would allow a large company to "lay claim" to a resource in space, if they could prove (ie put forth plans and such) that they can get to the asteroid to do whatever they need to do with it.

      What?!!? By that logic, all the land in North America should belong to bigasscorpco, since they can obviously turn a bigger profit on it, Wal-mart style, than any single homeowner could.

      I just hope nobody shows up claiming they need a hyperspace bypass.....

  • Tomorrow's countersuit (Score:5, Funny)

    by KFury ( 19522 ) * on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:22AM (#7462005) Homepage
    In a countersuit to be filed tomorrow, NASA plans to subpoena Orbdev officials under a claim that Orbdev owes NASA $38 million in parking fees for hitching their asteroid to NASA's probe.

    An unnamed NASA official claims, "It's [Orbdev's] gravity keeping the thing there. God knows our probe has other places it could be going if it didn't have to drag along this dead weight."

    Eros could not be reached for comment.

  • Pound sand (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dr. Photo ( 640363 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:24AM (#7462011) Journal
    Dear OrbDev,

    Department policy forbids payment of parking tickets that have not first been duly affixed to the windshield of the vehicle. Please let us know when you have done so.

    Love,
    NASA

    • Dear NASA (Score:3, Funny)

      by wirefarm ( 18470 )
      Dear NASA,
      Please be advised that your vehicle has hereby been impounded.
      It is being held on the same asteroid in our newly-formed impound area.
      Attempting to remove your vehicle from the impound lot without authorization will result in criminal penalties and the possibility of severe tire damage.

      Love,
      OrbDev

  • 'coz I own the Sun and you're receiving the energy from my property.

    On the serious note, what I can't understand at all about this (and other similar) claims to ownership of planets, asteroids and whatever else they want to grab is the basis of the title. How do these people claim to become owners?

  • sounds funny... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jlemmerer ( 242376 ) <xcom123.yahoo@com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:26AM (#7462018) Homepage
    ... but unfortunately isn't so. If the judge decides NASA has to pay this could cause serious trouble for future space exploration, for as far as I know most of the lunar and martian surface is already sold. If everybody from now on can claim money if something touches "his" property, this could possibly cause second thoughts. better to say "please place a ticket on our vehicle (harrharr) - and we will remove it as soon as possible".
    On the other hand side wasn't there a treaty signed sometimes in the 60's that forbade the claim for extraterrestrial property?
  • It's so blatantly obvious that this wacko is only interested in his $20 to establish a precident. He set that so "reasonably low" in the hopes that NASA would just make it go away and pay him (unlikely) the $20 and establish a precident he can use in the future for equally insane claims.

    I love how he contrasts, "$20 is a great deal since a $225 million piece of equipment is 'parked' there."

    Great, so do that give everyone the right to charge other people $1 a day to breathe because after all, you take over
  • I recall all those "buy one acre of Mars/The Moon/Whatever Planet" booths in the mall a couple of years ago. Were they in fact real, or what? I remember hearing the story that some guy went to the UN and claimed ownership of all planetary objects. How far can this go? Can I claim to own the Milky Way? Thanks to anybody who answers this question that has boggled me for the better part of a decade :(

    • Ask the native americans who owns the land. Once upon a time they would have laughed at the concept of owning the land. If you weren't there and using it then how could you deny it to anyone else and furthermore, what right did you have to spoil and damage it for your children. Now they understand too well what ownership means. It means that you will punish those who use something that you have told them not to.

      This is often forgotten because we live in a world where we observe these 'laws' and they bec

  • Whoa! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Hexydes ( 705837 )
    Better watch out! Mr.Nemitz is going to call dibs on Uranus next!

  • That's silly! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jvollmer ( 456588 ) *

    Every one knows that they have to put a ticket on the windshield first!

    C'mon, mod me up - It's funny!

  • Same story, not slashdotted (Score:5, Informative)

    by marnanel ( 98063 ) <slashdot&marnanel,org> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:27AM (#7462027) Homepage Journal
    (yet) [sciscoop.com].

  • This case is just too silly. SCO comes closer to sound logic than this guy.

    Then again, I'm sure we will be seeing some even sillier posts about how we need to set up some kind of property rights for when we start living on and mining asteroids.

    1) Asteroid Property Rights
    2) Extract oxygen and water from silicates
    3) Buy mining equipemnt
    4) ???
    5) Profit!

  • 1967 Outer Space Treaty (Score:4, Informative)

    by dragoness ( 220032 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:42AM (#7462078)
    http://history.nasa.gov/1967treaty.html [nasa.gov]

    From Article II:
    "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

  • Yeah, right... (Score:5, Informative)

    by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:44AM (#7462084) Journal

    Now, I'm getting curious - how do one 'establish a claim' on a piece of rock that's orbiting the sun? If it's just a cause of calling dids and grabbing what you can, I think I'ld like to claim ownership of Europa (no, not the continent, the ice covered rock thats up there). Not only can I charge NASA for parking there, but if they do find life, I can sue those organisms for not paying rent as well...

    Seriously thought, someone should brief these fellows on the international agreements that relates to 'Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies' [unvienna.org]. Pay particular attention to the second paragraph in article I, qouted in full;
    Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.
    In short, if NASA or anyone else can land somewhere, they are free to do so. End of story.

  • precedent has already been set. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:51AM (#7462099) Homepage Journal
    "If you do not occupy or otherwise improve your claimed property, you shall be considered derelect and in abandoment of said property and all entitlements therein" ...or similar wording on the US lawbooks for over 100 years now. Or is this a case of what is old is new again?

  • International treaty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by igny ( 716218 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:59AM (#7462139) Homepage Journal
    AGREEMENT GOVERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF STATES ON THE MOON AND OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES(1979) [islandone.org] is more appropriate here.

    From Article 1

    1. The provisions of this Agreement relating to the moon shall also apply to other celestial bodies within the solar system, other than the earth, except in so far as specific legal norms enter into force with respect to any of these celestial bodies.
    From Article 11
    3. Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person.
    • "3. Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person."

      I'm not natural, you insensitive clod!

  • Doubtful claims (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rabtech ( 223758 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:15AM (#7462198) Homepage
    While "real" capital is necessary for capitalism to function - that is you need clear property ownership rights - I doubt anyone who has never been in space could lay such a claim. If the property cannot be visited, traded, or borrowed against then it isn't really property or capital at all is it?

    (FYI: this is why many 3rd world countries who try capitalism don't do that well, or at least part of the reason. In the western world it is so ingrained that we don't even think about it, but I can buy a house and be reasonably sure that I own the property and will continue to do so. I can take out a small business loan against it. I can sell it and make money. Imagine living somewhere where you can't necessarily get a clean title to anything. Imagine it takes years, thousands of dollars, and visiting hundreds of government offices to setup a legitimate business due to all the red tape. We are fortunate enough to have clear property rights established. Our capital is legitimately moveable and that's what makes it work.)

  • Something interesting about Eros.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:33AM (#7462264) Homepage

    Hmmm...


    Looks like Eros has the disctinction of being the only celestial body known to man that is both shaped like, and owned by an enormous prick!

  • Flawed logic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by igny ( 716218 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @05:08AM (#7462372) Homepage Journal
    Quotes from Property Rights in Space By Gregory W. Nemitz
    Work-Equity Appropriation

    I do utilize 433 Eros in a virtual way, not requiring my physical presence or actual possession of the asteroid. In my quest to perfect my property right I use Eros and my plans' perceived value to attract resources, expert assistance, and to instigate the development of space resources.

    At the same time,
    Another Example for Clarity

    A person is walking down the street and drops a $20 bill into the gutter. A short while later, I am the first to come along and see it. Because I am the first, as soon as I see it and intend to pick it up, it becomes my property, so long as there is no evidence found of the identity of the unfortunate one.

    Near Shoemaker's equity is very similar to the $20 bill example. Should the $20 bill be left to rot or be claimed by another? No, of course not. The same is true with the $225M equity left in-situ Eros by the spacecraft. The first claimant of the un-owned thing, would be the owner.

    Ok, I claim ALL dropped and lost banknotes (be that US or any other currency) to be mine. Everyone who found them please send them to the rightful owner, that is me! My presence when and where you found the banknote(s) or the possession of the banknote(s) are not required to make the property claim for the named the banknote(s).

    • Re:Flawed logic (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Narcissus ( 310552 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @06:00AM (#7462526) Homepage
      A short while later, I am the first to come along and see it. Because I am the first, as soon as I see it and intend to pick it up, it becomes my property, so long as there is no evidence found of the identity of the unfortunate one.

      I have a question regarding this "clarity" (BTW, I do realise this is a quote by Nemitz, and not the parent poster). Obviously he wasn't the first person to see it, but what proves that he was the first to intend to pick it up?

      Imagine you were in the situation of Nemitz with this $20 note. He sees it and heads towards it to pick it up but at the same time (or seconds before hand, who really knows?) someone else sees it and goes to collect it. Who does the note now belong to?

      Is it the first person who intended to pick it up? Nemitz would hope not, because I'm sure someone else said that they owned it before him (and besides, how could anyone prove it either way?).

      Is it the first person to pick it up? Again, if this were the case, then that right would go to NASA I would assume.

      Is it the first person to say it, and loud enough for everyone to hear? Well, interesting: what if the second person was deaf? Similarly, what if the other person who claims this asteroid doesn't know about Nemitz's claim? Too bad for him? Well let's assume, then that this person who was unable to counter the claim (because they didn't hear about it) made their own claim prior to Nemitz. Too bad that he didn't hear about that claim for him to fight.

      You know what? I'm more than happy to concede this point on clarity to Nemitz, once he proves that he was the first person to make that claim.

  • The ultimate troll??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by B747SP ( 179471 ) <slashdot@selfabusedelephant.com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @05:21AM (#7462400)
    Gotta give this guy credit... I mean, people troll slashdot and usenet every day of the week, but this dude is trolling the US Federal Court, *AND* NASA, in one fell swoop! :-)

    He's got balls the size of 433 Eros.

  • This isn't the solution. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cheeseflan ( 462270 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @05:40AM (#7462461) Homepage

    I feel compelled to respond on this as I feel it could be the most important issue of the 21st century - especially if the X Prize boys get their mojo on.

    Property rights essentially appeared at the same time as the Agricultural Revolution about twelve to fifteen thousand years ago. For the first time, you really couldn't move down the valley a bit if someone you didn't like lived near you. You had a field, and that was the only way your (suddenly) large family could live through the winter. If you let him take or use what you'd literally broken yourself to create - you would die. Harsh stuff, and the reason the core of every successful legal system in the world enshrines property rights over all others. Even the U.S. constitution has property rights so mixed in, so tightly bound, that it mentions them again and again - they were as natural and obvious to the founding fathers as breathing.

    So we move on to an age where agriculture is no longer quite as central to our lives. Suddenly we are coming up against the limits of property rights. "Intellectual Property" seems to be an obvious idea to an industrial economy - a simple extension of the concept that's allowed the human population to take over the world. As the discussions on /. have shown, this is no longer quite so obvious, so compelling.

    Already you can see where I'm leading. If we take the idea of ownership as we normally see it and then apply it to the stars we come into some severe problems.

    No consortium of insurance companies in the world, not even the whole of the Lloyds of London market could insure against a mis-directed asteroid impacting with the Pacific. So how could any mining corporation ever hope to start liberating resources from our solar system? Remember that the Lloyds market is the clearing-house for all insurance and re-insurance in the world, and even they struggled to swallow the risk from the Space Shuttle. Even then it took the intervention of the U.S. Government as insurer-of-last-resort to placate the market-makers.

    So don't take responsibility: Let anyone get on with doing what they want? No claim means no liability? Right?

    What happens when two mining companies lay claim to the same stretch of asteroids? If they are in the same orbit, and therefore easier to get at, both companies are going to want to protect their investment. Do we want to return to the days when warring villages were continuously slaughtering each other? When simply travelling outside the palisade meant risking death?

    Here's another example. What if settlers arrive, and then someone else causes problems - e.g. their solar arrays are rendered useless by the cloud of particulates raised by a "nearby" extraction operation. They could go to court for help. It is a clear tort. After all, they can file electronically and it's only a twenty-four hour round trip to the central courthouse computers. There's just a small problem: They are dying for lack of air right now.

    Here's the solution: There isn't one. Not with our current expectations and society.

    As with all problems where human beings are involved, this is going to have to evolve. The societal structures that have worked so well for us down here are going to have to change. That isn't to say that there won't be governments, charities and corporations.

    More likely, we'll have to have a long and drawn out struggle between the varying imperatives: "It's mine!" "You can't do that to me!" "If you try to stop me I'll defend my rights!" "You must leave that alone!"

    Hopefully not too many will die. Some will.

    Who knows what will emerge? The governing-corporation? The feudal charity? Maybe the gift economy shown so beautifully in the Open Source Movement will be the governing paradigm? All I know is that our system isn't going to stay the same - because it cannot work when celestial mechanics becomes a part of your insurance quote.

  • "Sunshine" (SM) license fees due (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 13, 2003 @05:49AM (#7462493)
    To Gregory W. Nemitz

    Re: Amnesty for unauthorized use of service

    I, Helios Apollo, owner of a main sequence, spectral class G2 star of radius 696,000 km, situated approximately 1.5e8 kilometers from the planet Earth and known in the English language as "the Sun", have been advised that you may have been using the service known as "Sunshine", a stream of photons emitted by the above-mentioned star, for the purposes of visual navigation. Since, according to my records, you are not a licensed user of the service, I am asking that you account for your usage of the service beginning from 0h00 UTC January 1, 2000 according to either of the following billing plans and remit any amounts that may be payable.

    The Photon Count Plan. Count all photons emitted from the surface of the Sun of wavelength greater than 395 nanometers and less than 695 nanometers that directly impinge upon your person and all of your belongings including real estate, then multiply by the factor 4.0 times ten to the minus twenty-five to yield the amount in cents of U.S. currency.

    The Earth Residency Plan. Only 36 cents per day of use. Use shall be deemed to occur in a 24 hour period if at least one photon would have been used under the Photon Count Plan.

    To be exempted from accounting for use of the service, please submit a copy of Certificate of Vampire Status.

  • Nobody noticed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Julian Morrison ( 5575 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @06:50AM (#7462663)
    ...on January 27, 1967, when they nationalized 99.9* percent of everything. The UN Outer Space Treaty [state.gov] purports to make the entirety of outer space off limits to property, held in trust for "mankind". Supposedly, Earth is the single oasis of individual ownership in the vast communist deeps. Yes, I said communist, and I meant it! What else do you call banning all private ownership - of nearly everthing in existence? Besides pure bloody minded hubris.

    This treaty is the dragon that the Eros Project is trying to slay. They are attempting to creeate case law backing the natural right to claim, take, and use unowned frontier land [erosproject.com] - even in space.

    If you support private space ventures such as X-Prize, you should also support OrbDev.

  • Sovereignty Issues (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2@@@earthshod...co...uk> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @06:58AM (#7462678)
    No US body has jurisdiction over non-US territory. Since asteroids are not US territory {in fact they are not even Earth territory} then this loon's claim is unenforceable.

    Although, he may have a claim against Orbdev for selling him something they did not own {ever been to Paris and had someone try to sell you the Eiffel tower? Or been to London and had someone try to sell you Tower Bridge? Or
    foreach ($landmarks as $city => $landmark) {
    echo "Have you ever been to $city and had someone try to sell you $landmark?\n";
    }
    } Well, you get the idea. And it's Orbdev that are going to be needing the lawyers, because fraud is criminal, not civil.

  • This guy doesn't stand a chance..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sllim ( 95682 ) <{ten.knilhtrae} {ta} {ecnahca}> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:47AM (#7462780)
    Think about what 'ownership of land' is really.

    My first thought was 'well if he hasn't planted a flag there then how could he own it?'.

    But that argument really doesn't stand the test of time. There are plenty of people that own land and property that they have never set foot on. Nothing strange about that.
    So the moon is a tad farther away, and this asteroid a bit farther then that.
    Distance isn't the problem.

    The law isn't either.

    It is enforceability and protection of said property.
    A business owner who owns property on the other side of the country has many different tools protecting his ownership of the property. He has local, state and federal laws that specifically give him ownership, he can buy security service, he can hire people to protect his property, these are the ways that he takes ownership.

    As long as his defenses are better then your offenses, as long as he wins the case of ownership and you loose then he owns the property.
    And it isn't neccesarily laws that protect property ownership.

    Take Saddam as an example. Saddam owned palaces all over Iraq. A year ago the owner of those palaces was not in question. You could try to lay claim to those palaces, but when Saddam was done with you, well lets just say you would apologize for your stupidity.

    But now the US owns those palaces. We didn't go to court and prove anything.
    We took them.
    By force.
    With big guns.

    And in Iraq we are basicaly saying 'We don't need no stinking laws, if you think you own this property, then we challenge you to take it.'.

    This has a bearing on this crackpot who sent Nasa a $20 parking ticket.

    So dude has a peace of paper saying that he owns said asteroid. Isn't that nice.
    Nasa dissagrees.
    If dude can find a judge that will enforce his parking ticket against Nasa, then dude wins, ergo dude 'owns' the asteroid.
    If dude cannot succesfully collect payment from Nasa then dude is left with one more option.
    Eviction.
    If dude can get the finances together, and the means, and the smarts to knock Nasa's probe off the asteroid then dude would truly own the asteroid.
    But if dude cannot evict Nasa, and cannot enforce payment, then dude certainly doesn't own the asteroid.

    This may all seem like the petty politics of a crackpot.
    But China wants to put a man on the moon in the next 10 years.

    The only thing stopping China from planting a Chinese flag and claiming the moon is a piece of paper that China may or may not have signed.

  • Pounding sand? (Score:3, Informative)

    by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @09:03AM (#7463075)
    The story says: "NASA told him to 'pound sand' [erosproject.com]", However, though the quotemearks would imply that this phrase was used in the linked document, I don't see it anywhere. Who decided to dramatise this by inventing colourful language and making it look like a quote?

    Also, if you do look at the cited documents on the lunatic's website, they're misaligned scans of court documents. But this isn't simple incompetence, it's encryption! "These document scans are formated to hinder text capture. No portion may be saved or copied for any purpose whatsoever."

  • Locke's Labor Theory of Aquisition (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @10:23AM (#7463576) Homepage Journal
    Locke studied this kind of issue:
    when can the commons be appropriated by a private individual?

    (1) Individuals can appropriate common goods for their private use.

    Reason: because of necessity. If a person is to survive, then by necessity he must take some of the commons for his own use (food, shelter etc).

    (2) One justly appropriates common goods by virtue of laboring on them.

    Reason: a person owns his own body and his own labor. When he applies this to a previously unowned thing (e.g. works a plot of land to create a harvest), his personal property interests are mixed with that thing and he can claim it as his own.

    (3) There are limitations ot the right to acquire unkowned property: (a) you cannot acquire property that you have not worked with your labor, (b) you can only acquire so much as you can use without spoilage and (c) you must leave "as much and as good" as you take (e.g. the acquisition should not impoversh the commons). An example of C is that if there are many oases on a desert route, you can take one and improve it for your private use. However if there is only one, this must remain in the commons.

    Locke goes on to point out that these limitations are somewhat ameliorated by the introduction of money. Because you can purchase the labor of others, thta labor becomes your labor, and you can use it to claim more from the commons than you can personally mix your labor with. Likewise, he asserts since you can covert resources into cash and cash is in essence unspoilable, you can acquire more of a resource than you can make personal use of. Finally, because people can purchase the use of things from you, it becomes possible to acquire the entire stock of a resource without making it impossible for other people to survive.

    Locke then goes on to argue that people, by accepting the use of money, have accepted the consequences which include vastly unequal wealth and power. Once he gets to this point, he becomes more controversial. Locke was no socialist: he was an advocate of the pursuit of unlimited wealth and personal power, taken from the commons if necessary, even to the point of believing some human beings could own others. Yet even he would not say you could claim something without lifting a finger to do something with it.

  • Diplomatic Immunity (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FrankDrebin ( 238464 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @12:40PM (#7464882) Homepage

    Like all other visiting officials, NEAR and NASA can simply refuse to pay parking tickets under diplomatic immunity. It happens on Earth, why not the rest of the cosmos?

    Man I wish Douglas Adams were with us to chime in here.

  • What NASA should have said: (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tingler ( 56229 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @01:02PM (#7465107)
    "We are so very sorry for landing on your asteroid. We will gladly pay all rental fees & damages. A check will be delivered to you at said asteroid with the utmost urgency. We appreciate your patience.

    Love,
    NASA"

  • complaint... (Score:3)

    by joebeone ( 620917 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @01:51PM (#7465701) Homepage
    could someone in Nevada please go to the courthouse and get a copy of the complaint? It could really help those of us willing to take action to know what Mr. Nemitz specific claims are.... and the images on his website are not sufficient considering that the briefs are available to the public. Joe

  • US Federal Court = Eminent Domain (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Atryn ( 528846 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @03:47PM (#7466912) Homepage
    If he is filing a claim in US Federal Court then he is asserting that the US has jurisdiction over the asteroid. If the US has jurisdiction over the asteroid then it must be part of the US. If it is part of the US then I believe the governement would have MANY means of claiming eminent domain [reference.com], defined at that link:

    Main Entry: eminent domain
    Pronunciation: 'e-m&-n&nt- Function: noun
    : the right of the government to take property from a private owner for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of its sovereignty over all lands within its jurisdiction

  • Just 'cause you keep saying it, doesn't make it so (Score:3, Informative)

    by thepacketmaster ( 574632 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:16PM (#7467259) Homepage Journal
    This guy seems to think that being a wind bag is enough work-equity to claim an asteroid. He keeps going on about how things worked in the past, but ends up missing the point completely.

    Why do people in the Americas have property as we know it today? Go back 500 years. You have native American tribes that claim land and defend it against other tribes. Then you have the British, Spanish, French move in and either purchase the land from the tribes, or take it from them by force and then defend it from other invaders. (Mind you, I'm not saying what they did was right.) Then you have the future Americans get together and say 'piss off' to the British, and they defend the land against the British. Now we're at the point where the government owns anything within the perimeter they defend. The government and individuals then sell that land as they sees fit.

    So a claim has never been about what you say. When there is no government, as is the case in space, it's all about what you buy from someone else or what you can take by force. In the end, it all comes down to force. So until this guy flies out there to Eros and starts fending off invaders, NASA or anyone else can park whatever it wants on Eros.

  • Based On Property USE Rights (Score:3, Informative)

    by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:26PM (#7467435) Homepage
    versus conventional property rights, NASA has the better claim since they are actually "using" the asteroid whereas Orbdev hasn't done anything but claim it.

    Orbdev is based on the feudal property notion that simply riding around a piece of land for a day gives you some legitimate claim to it.

    This is NOT a correct or workable concept of property.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close