NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my first draft proposal. Please be as brutally honest as you see fit.

A Proposal to Encourage Free Trade in Space
(To Repeal UN Resolution #50)

The United Nations, NOTING:

That Resolution #50 claims that "no nation can claim title to the Moon";

That Resolution #50 fails to define what permissible "space objectives" are for nations, and by omission, denies the rights of private investors in space;

That there are currently no economic incentives for private investors to invest in space-based assets because of the lack of private property ownership;

That many rare and valuable minerals can be found in space;

That national governments have shown little or no interest in nationalized space exploration;

That the interest of the private sector is a driving force behind the expansion to new sectors, such as space;

And that continued space expansion is necessary not only for the continued economic and social development of humanity but also for survival of the human race in the event of an unforseeable catastrophe;


By the passage of this resolution, MANDATES THAT:
I. The United Nations immediately establish a system of private property in space;

II. Freedom of movement through space be guaranteed for all individuals whose sole purpose is to peacably trade with others;

III. "Property" in space shall be considered land on planets, asteroids, or other celestial bodies, with actual space being unownable and intended for free movement between this property;

IV. The United Nations create the UNCoFTS, the United Nations Council on Free Trade in Space, to supervise the distribution and division of property in space;

V. All property be designated as belonging to the United Nations, to be sold to states or private investors at the discretion of UNCoFTS;

VI. That the Lunar Base established as a result of Resolution #50 be designated a permanent, free, and international research and exploration facility, to be funded by UNCoFTS profit from the sale of space assets;

VII. That all remaining profit from the sale of space assets be placed in the UN coffers, for future use at the discretion of UN member nations.

Respectfully submitted,
Tortallia.

This is my first draft proposal. Please be as brutally honest as you see fit.
Welcome.

I like the idea of your proposal, a lot. However, as it stands, it's illegal. In order to repeal Resolution #50 - something I would support doing - you need to propose a repeal. All that repeal can do is remove that resolution; it cannot introduce any new legislation.

Then you would have to make a separate proposal making the various requirements of this proposal.

Repeal "UN Space Consortium"

The United Nations,
BELIEVING that the development of a free-market system in space is absolutely necessary for continued space exploration;

OBSERVING that little progress has been made on behalf of individual nations towards the purpose of the exploitation of space resources;

NOTING that United Nations Resolution #50 states that "no nation can claim title to the Moon," and as such denies property ownership in space;

NOTING FURTHER that Resolution #50 makes no mention of private-sector ownership of space assets;

REGRETTING that the UNSC, as outlined in Resolution #50, has very little power to call for increased space expansion;

and ANTICIPATING that free-market capitalism and space expansion are absolutely necessary for the continued development and survival of humanity,

hereby repeals UN Resolution #50.

Respectfully submitted,
Tortallia.

Does anyone have any problems with/suggestions for this repeal bill?

Does anyone have any problems with/suggestions for this repeal bill?
Well, I don't think it'll be very popular as it stands, because the UN hasn't traditionally been that capitalist.

One thing: you say "NOTING FURTHER that Resolution #50 makes no mention of private-sector ownership of space assets;" but that doesn't mean it precludes them. It could be argued that because "no nation can lay claim to the Moon", individuals can. So perhaps the economic system you're discussing could be used already?

Could I take out the references to national ownership in the original bill, and just have it apply to the private sector without repealing the original resolution?

Could I take out the references to national ownership in the original bill, and just have it apply to the private sector without repealing the original resolution?
Well, first - and I know this is going to annoy you, but - this isn't the real world. In the NationStates world, some people roleplay as being on other planets. For example (http://www.nationstates.net/09720/page=display_region/region=the_planet_mars), these people are on Mars. They might not take kindly to your auctioning off their territory.

The bit I would concentrate on, personally, is Clause II: I think a Free Movement in space for peaceful uses proposal would be a good idea.

Well, how about a declaration of the neutrality of outer space, similar to the real world's OSR?

A Proposal on the Neutrality of Space

The United Nations, NOTING:

That space represents an ultimate strategic high-ground;

That to allow national military hegemony over regions of space would create a "rush" to militarize space, ensuring international strife and conflict;

That national governments have shown little or no interest in peaceful, national space exploration;

That guaranteed freedom of movement in space is necessary to give an incentive for companies and private citizens to trade and travel beyond the Earth's mesosphere;

That without continued exploration of and expansion into peaceful, international space, humanity is vulnerable to an unforseeable catastrophe and thus extinction;

And that space represents the common heritage of all mankind, and is invaluable to our future development as a species and a global society;

The United Nations is hereby RESOLVED: that no state may interfere with the peaceful movement of private citizens beyond the Earth's mesosphere, and further, that no state or private citizen may militarily occupy any section of space at any time.

I totally support the proposal calling for neutrality in space. It is much wiser and more respectful than your first proposal. While you may disagree, and that's perfectfully fine, my nation has a socialist-communist economic system. We see no reason why, if every nation has the right to choose its own economic system, some nations are effectively withheld from any ventures into space. Why should we sell off all of space? Can't we fix problems here on Earth first? No one has the right to own space. That's an utterly ridiculous idea. I love the concept of neutrality because it takes a huge step towards recognizing this. Your proposal would probably be illegal due to its automatic assertions about capitalism as a superior ideology.

Sorry if I seem like I'm coming down hard, but space is a common place greater than us that should be a place of peace, trade and exploration, as well as science. By the way, what would you do if someone bought a place inhabited by aliens? Sounds like Europeans buying the Americas without realizing people lived there (OOC).

Peace and good luck with neutrality in space.

Well, this bill could either be the groundwork for either more socialist ideals, or a capitalist system - it only precludes state interference with private citizens, without taking a stance on actual ownership. Whatever the ultimate outcome of subsequent bills may be, I feel that this is definitely a step in the right direction because the militarization of space would certainly have disastrous consequences.

But what should I submit this under? It's either global disarmament or free trade. I can't decide.

Although we cannot claim a piece of land in space as private property, we can claim a structure as private property. This is beneficial to us for the most part. This means that once we mine a piece of the moon lets say and put it into our structure it belongs to us. No one has jurisdiction over it. It is a tremendous advantage for first movers.

The same follows with building on the ocean. The structure which we built from the sea belongs to us, not the water. Because all the other nations are confused, it allows free reign for first movers.

It also binds up those people who are fixed on planetary structures. We can claim an asteroid for example, because we have turned it into a habitat in most peoples mentality. They will support us in owning it.

Lets say I build a moon base. Because there is a dome most people won't say that does not belong to you unless they are willing to fight you for it.

Take what you can before others claim rights.

But what should I submit this under? It's either global disarmament or free trade. I can't decide.As Zeldon has several nations on other planets and mining operations on a number of moons we find this something we can't support. We would remind you that some nations existed long before the UN came to be and they held property in space and continue to do so. Thus have military forces in space as well as trade centers that have been there long before the UN built and occupied their offices where they now are.

To avoid confict with R50 those areas in so called space that we once held have been given independence from Zeldon but remain regional partners or have formed new regions outside the rules of the UN. Thus we don't own them we work as equals with them to built a better universe for all our citizens. So we see no problems with R50 and would hope that any resolution to replace it would not change how we live with others in this universe.

Also I would rather see a fellow UN Nation settle and claim property on another planet or moon than some rogue nation not in the UN. This is why we incourage our allies to move into space and help them settle those areas we feel can be used better to our security and improve our social desires. I'd rather know who is out there watching me from the moon than not know them and would prefer to be able to go there and watch things as an invited guest of those who do own property out in space.

Does your military presence in outer space in the past necessarily determine your future course of action for the rest of time? I would remind you that you are bound to obey UN resolutions. Nations that have had slavery for thousands of years were still forced to abolish it when the UN passed a resolution doing so.

Wouldn't a demilitarization of international space (without a decision about private property rights) be more amenable to your interests, not less, as long as free trade is guaranteed? Surely you can't like paying the upkeep for the military fleet required to stabilize those sectors. And even if you want to keep your defenses against non-UN member states strong, agreeing to the free trade/free movement section of the bill would guarantee that no one interferes with your trading operations.

You voice strong support for R50. First of all, this bill doesn't repeal, contradict, or undermine the mission of R50. In fact, if you read it (R50) again, its implicit goal is to foster trade and exploration. My resolution would simply ensure that this is possible.

You state that "As Zeldon has several nations on other planets and mining operations on a number of moons we find this something we can't support." That's actually technically illegal, according to R50. It states that "no nation can own the moon," implying that private property in "space" is illegal. Shouldn't you be supporting a repeal of R50, seeing as how you are bound to obey the UN as a member state?

Does your military presence in outer space in the past necessarily determine your future course of action for the rest of time? I would remind you that you are bound to obey UN resolutions. Nations that have had slavery for thousands of years were still forced to abolish it when the UN passed a resolution doing so.

Wouldn't a demilitarization of international space (without a decision about private property rights) be more amenable to your interests, not less, as long as free trade is guaranteed? Surely you can't like paying the upkeep for the military fleet required to stabilize those sectors. And even if you want to keep your defenses against non-UN member states strong, agreeing to the free trade/free movement section of the bill would guarantee that no one interferes with your trading operations.

You voice strong support for R50. First of all, this bill doesn't repeal, contradict, or undermine the mission of R50. In fact, if you read it again, its implicit goal is to foster trade and exploration. My resolution would simply ensure that this is possible.

You state that "As Zeldon has several nations on other planets and mining operations on a number of moons we find this something we can't support." That's actually technically illegal, according to R50. It states that "no nation can own the moon,"We in fact do not support R50 but try to compy with it without effecting our nation in a negative manner. As Zeldon is first not on planet earth but a separate planet some distance from earth in another solar system. We have a base on planet earth settled many years back which we use to deal with the UN and it's membership. Also we have allies not in UN who have settled on earh as well as other planets in the same solar system. We once owned them all as colonies of our great empire. However we have moved away from that and allowed many to form their own nations and even establish regions. They still remain part of our Family Society working as one to better the lives of all.

Thus we would not like to see R50 repealed and something put in place that would make us change again how we live in space.

We in fact do not support R50 but try to compy with it without effecting our nation in a negative manner. As Zeldon is first not on planet earth but a separate planet some distance from earth in another solar system. We have a base on planet earth settled many years back which we use to deal with the UN and it's membership. Also we have allies not in UN who have settled on earh as well as other planets in the same solar system. Once owned them all as colonies of out great empire. However we have moved away from that and allowed many to form their own nations and even establish regions. They still remain part of our Family Society working as one to better the lives of all.

Thus we would not like to see R50 repealed and something put in place that would make us change again how we live in space.

A. I am trying neither to repeal, nor to change in any way R50.
B. R50 did not affect how you live, apparently; its provision that private property in space was illegal seems not to have affected you, based on your description of Zeldon.
C. R50 is about making a lunar base for UN exploration. It makes no provision for how you have to change your "space empire."
D. How does this change how you live in space?

I have a problem with talk of "ownership" of space. I'd like to avoid dictating ownership of space. Some of our nations in the UN might not fully believe in land/space ownership, e.g. some of our nomadic nations.

I would like to see a UN resolution proposing a state of peace in any and all universes. As far as ownership, that's something for personal nations to dispute if there is an dispute of ownership.

Azazel Diener
Leader of the Dominion of Teufelanbetung
Join the Region of Logic and Cooperation today! (http://www.nationstates.net/56576/page=display_region)

Are you going to claim eminent domain on every single structure that has already been built in space as part of this plan. You would have to claim large portions of the asteroid fields, pieces of the moon, the oort clouds, and numerous other places as part of eminent domain-- pay us for what we already are using for this to be remotely acceptable.

Your statement that there is no capitalism in space is ridiculous. In modern tech there is no capitalism on the moon. In PMT there certainly is capitalism. The main problem of space capitalism is not interest, it is the cost of getting ships and other pieces of equipment to orbit which is solved by space elevators, space or rail gun lanuch vehicles, possible Airships to Orbit, or SSTO rockets in PMT.

You really are not versed in space industry with your statements. By 2018-2025 companies will be profitable in space. The problem is one of getting people out of the gravity well, not private property. Companies like Liftport and JP Aerospace will make it possible to do this in the future. It costs thousands of dollars to reach LEO-- there are very few products that can be built with the costs of a gravity well, maybe some medicines, a few specialty products, and satellites.

Private property in this environment will cause more problems than the current situation. I am quite happy to not worry about whether someone else has title to my asteroid. Possession is 9/10 of the law. If I can get there first and develop my industry first without interference, I will be much happier.

I love the idea of turning over the future of the solar system to lawyers, who has title to this rock, or piece of land. It is like the frontier-- first come, first served. Lawyers and treaties are great creators of wars.

The value of the raw materials is what counts not the title initially. Title should initially go to the person who can claim it, not a person who signs a piece of paper so they can get it in the future.

Space is already not neutral. There has been quite a bit of warfare going on in Nationstates involving space warfare. It would be nice if it was more neutral because my country is based on trade and tech not warfare so much.

A. I am trying neither to repeal, nor to change in any way R50.?We are sorry but we had not fully read R50 which follows:
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #50
UN Space Consortium
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Rixtex
Description: Whereas the nations of the world wish to unify their efforts at space exploration, and
Whereas, no nation can claim title to the Moon,
Let it be resolved, that an agency to be named the United Nations Space Consortium (hereafter referred to as “U.N.S.C.”) is hereby created. The purpose of the U.N.S.C. shall be to establish a permanent Lunar Base capable of furthering the exploration of space for knowledge and resources.
The U.N.S.C. shall be incorporated under the charter of the United Nations and entirely funded through the sale of stock to any desiring nation, regardless of their affiliation to the United Nations. Non-participating nations are free to pursue their own space objectives, but would not reap the rewards of the investors. No taxing authority shall be created by the passage of this resolution.
A Provisional Board of Directors (“Provisional Board”) shall be composed of a representative from each nation participating in the U.N.S.C. immediately following the passage of this resolution. The Provisional Board will then proceed to elect a permanent Board of Directors (“Board”). No sale of stock shall occur before the seating of the Board.
Full operational control, design, development, priorities, and administration will be assigned to the Board whose service will remain subject to the will of the stockholders, as provided for in the Articles of Incorporation.
Let the nations of the world move forward together to a new frontier.
Votes For: 13,191
Votes Against: 5,426
Implemented: Sun Feb 29 2004And had only seen the line you included from it about owning the moon. Also this is one that was past prior to our joining the UN so we had not considered it as a problem since we felt our actions of forming separate independent nations outside the UN to hold claims to 'the moon' rather than us do so meet the requirements of this. Also we have had no problem with this one and already have military bases in space and trade centers there, as part of our treaties with allies in regions who do own 'the moon'.

We do see some problems with this (R50) now that we have looked at it again but still feel it is not broken so don't need fixing. Thus as somebody suggested your proposal would reguire this one (R50) to be repealed; we can't support it nor the repeal. If it ain't broken don't try to fix it or you could break it for sure.


OOC: The issue of what to do in space is just like the issue of England and America. Spain and France had early on settled in American and England came along and just took it. After wars in Europe and finaly rebellion in America we got where we are today with several changes in the years to follow. Zeldon and the membership would be either Spain of France with UN as England. Results is all three eventualy lost out in America.. so do you want the same to happen in NS due to how the UN plays this.

IC: We have open trade in space with many nations who claim full titiles to the worlds they live on and govern those worlds as they choose and thus live in peace with other worlds. Many are members of this body of nations others allied with many members here to better this universe for the good of all.

Look, I am no longer endorsing that original policy. As I have stated. Several times. Instead, I'm asking for feedback on this:

A Proposal on the Neutrality of Space

The United Nations, NOTING:

That space represents an ultimate strategic high-ground;

That to allow national military hegemony over regions of space would create a "rush" to militarize space, ensuring international strife and conflict;

That national governments have shown little or no interest in peaceful, national space exploration;

That guaranteed freedom of movement in space is necessary to give an incentive for companies and private citizens to trade and travel beyond the Earth's mesosphere;

That without continued exploration of and expansion into peaceful, international space, humanity is vulnerable to an unforseeable catastrophe and thus extinction;

And that space represents the common heritage of all mankind, and is invaluable to our future development as a species and a global society;

The United Nations is hereby RESOLVED: that no state may interfere with the peaceful movement of private citizens beyond the Earth's mesosphere, and further, that no state or private citizen may militarily occupy any section of space at any time.

As I have also stated, this would not repeal, nor does it attempt to "fix" R50. It's an extension of the idea of non-militarized, peaceful, and free movement in - not ownership of - international space. If you have any feedback on this draft of the resolution, feel free to offer it.

That national governments have shown little or no interest in peaceful, national space exploration;

I would think that the line about 'nations have shown little or no interest in peaceful, national space exploration' is false as R50 clearly disproves that statement in that it was passed period by national governments who did show some interest in this issue. Also there have been other proposals come up covering issues of space travel and such so there is an interest maybe not at the UN level but most likely at a regional or national level.

The United Nations is hereby RESOLVED: that no state may interfere with the peaceful movement of private citizens beyond the Earth's mesosphere, and further, that no state or private citizen may militarily occupy any section of space at any time.On earth you have laws that grant people the right to keep people off their land and our of their homes, here you make that impossible off the earth on other worlds. As you create earth military forces but here ban creation of military forces by nations not of earth. Here can't even occupy our homes on another world beyond earth. This is why we oppose this as it doesn't take into account nations exist in here outside those on one planet earth. It only gives protection to earth which all should have.

That's a good point. Perhaps the text should read "The United Nations is hereby RESOLVED: that no state may interfere with the peaceful movement of private citizens in interplanetary space, and further, that no state or private citizen may militarily occupy any section of space at any time." This would refer solely to the actual "space" part of space.

that no state or private citizen may militarily occupy any section of space at any time."That won't fly, no pun intended. Nations and alliances that have entire stellar bodies (ie: Yut on Titan), would view the space around their holdings in much the same way planet-based nations view international waters. To ban the holdings of open space would probably be a deal-killer.

Yeah, now that I see the whole picture, this is probably going to be waaaay too difficult to make appealing. That's it, I'm scrapping this resolution. Unless anyone else wants to take it over. Feel free.

That's a good point. Perhaps the text should read "The United Nations is hereby RESOLVED: that no state may interfere with the peaceful movement of private citizens in interplanetary space, and further, that no state or private citizen may militarily occupy any section of space at any time." This would refer solely to the actual "space" part of space.


Again a problem as say nation A is on planet X and has several space stations in place between planets Y and Z to serve as waystations for travel between the planets. This would be needed to serve to provide refueling points as well as say security to prevent space piracy. Thus to ban this would remove these needed waystations.

OOC: Even in the wild west they had waystations between main towns for the Pony Express and Stage Coaches as well as Trains to stop and do what they had to do.. There will always be a need even if it between planets or just to the moon for a place the kids can get out of the space craft and tinkle.

IC: Also somebody has to think of safety in space so somebody has to interfer to keep things safe or you get everyone crashing into each other. As you say peacefull movement will not be interfered with.

OOC: On Interstate Highways one moves at 100mph and is not fighting with anyone but they still interfer and ticket them for doing over 70mph. Or travel in the wrong lane or go down the wrong side of road. Then they have polution laws on fuels used in the vehiles and saftey equipment on them. Look at normal restrictions on airplanes just around the planet that only fly from one point to another or ships. Space Craft that are not safe pose as big a threat as anything to the people on a planet they may crash on. Look at in RL how planes were used to take down the twin towers. Think what could be done with a space craft.

Look, I'm not really that interested in salvaging this, but if anyone else, one recommendation: permit the capture of criminals, terrorists, etc. in space. Otherwise, space becomes pirate heaven. Some sort of police/military/star patrol is also a pretty good idea for similar reasons.

Just thought I'd put it out there. Nice try, Tortallia.

Look, I'm not really that interested in salvaging this, but if anyone else, one recommendation: permit the capture of criminals, terrorists, etc. in space. Otherwise, space becomes pirate heaven. Some sort of police/military/star patrol is also a pretty good idea for similar reasons.

Just thought I'd put it out there. Nice try, Tortallia.

We can't have a UN-run police/military/'star patrol', under the basic rules about resolutions, but I just happen to have spent a couple of hours last night producing the first draft for an anti-piracy proposal -- which I think should be wide enough in scope to cover spacegoing ones as well as seafaring ones -- that I plan on posting in the DEFCON forum this evening...

I'm pretty sure the space fleets or orbit guards of the future tech space nations are taking care of piracy out there.

I'm pretty sure the space fleets or orbit guards of the future tech space nations are taking care of piracy out there.


Not just the future tech. Kivisto has orbital defense systems and launch pads. Primarily targetting surface regions, but they could easily be recalibrated to target objects in space.