Don’t get your ethics mixed up with your sense of beauty. I wouldn’t lift a finger to stop someone from writing on the moon, nor voluntarily pay a third party to do so, but I still think the concept is in very poor taste, destroys the beauty of the natural world, and would never do so myself.

This would create negative externalities for most of the world’s people–just not actionable ones. It’s like mountaintop removal mining… not unlibertarian in theory, but ugly as hell.

Flip side: Why aren’t people upset with Procter & Gamble’s appropriation of the moon in their corporate iconography and logo, which began over a century ago?

Just another reason why I dislike “Marketing” people so much. They have no respect for anything, not even a natural satellite, if it can be defaced to put a buck in their pockets.

If the moon must be defaced, put a peace sign on it to remind us all to live in harmony. I’m not a wacko hippie living in a commune, but I do have a hippie soul and I know that Karma works. A nightly reminder to “Give Peace a Chance” would probably do a lot of good for the people on this planet.

Life and Earth is not about getting whatever you can for yourself. You can’t take it with you. Respect each other and offer a helping hand when you can. You’ll get far more in return than money can buy.

Here’s a corrected link to that Block article.

Don’t bogart that joint my friend
Pass it over to me
Don’t bogart that joint my friend
Pass it over to me

Roll another one
Just like the other one
You’ve been holding on to it
And I sure will like a hit

Roll another one
Just like the other one
That one’s burned to the end
Come on and be a real friend

Why bother going all the way to the moon?

I’ve heard of plans to launch fold-out billboard satellites (sorry, can’t find a link). This would be much cheaper, and they could be in full color. They could even be made using e-paper so that they would be programmable. They would also reflect the sun at all times, unlike the moon.

The first company to advertise in space will be severely criticized. But they will set the precedent, get a huge amount of ancillary publicity, and the law of marginal utility means that each successive infraction on stargazers’ sensibilities will be criticized less and less.

I’m sure there’s also some absurd climate change argument to be made regarding these things – maybe they would reflect the sun away from the earth during the day and towards it at night (they would have to in order to be visible). That’s how it gets through congress.

Personally, advertising in space appalls me. There aren’t many things that I hold sacred, but this is one. I think it’s because this advertising would be less avoidable, unlike most terrestrial ads. They would always be there orbiting above your head. While it may not violate any basic property rights, it does violate basic decency. Is there really so little advertising space on earth that we need to expand into space?

If some firm rented space on every telephone pole and installed megaphones to blast audio ads throughout your neighborhood, would this violate property rights? Do you own the air outside your house? What about the sky above it? Does homesteading have effect in 2 or 3 dimensions? What arbitrary elevation separates your property from an unclaimed orbit over it?

Maybe China will just shoot them all down.

The best route to protecting the moon might be a private tourism industry making the first claim. But we all know that the moon is the property of the US Government. They have homesteaded it into a golf course.

In Australia, at least half of the billboards I see have some form of government logo on them, and usually some gory picture of a family who should have worn their seatbelts, or a dissected smoker’s lung. The logos offend me more than the photos. Once private industry gets the billboards up there, they will become wonderful tools for propaganda.

How could you homestead it, to keep it the same? There would be a massive market to keep it natural imo…

Is there any way?

It’s like surf spots… Kira in Australia for eg. perfect waves, world famous. Then the govt started dredging (homesteading?) and ruined it completely. What if it wasn’t government though… private citizens instead…

Want to build a wharf, but this will ruin the waves, destroy the beach…

The surfers don’t want it changed or altered (the sand), because that would ruin the waves.

They try stop access from the beach? Bribe them not too? Eh?

Technically, a surfer can homestead a wave. He mixes his labor with it, he drops in and has first claim on it. Those who drop in on him, and invading his property… lol ?

A few thoughts…

I suspect the disgust expressed by many to this idea is fairly universal. Anyone considering spending a few trillion to sculpt their logo in moon sand would be taking a huge risk that the act would backfire and hurt rather than help thier brand, nevermind the costs involved.

The question raised about homesteaded property rights on viewing of the moon interest me however. Is there an argument to be made that billions have “homesteaded” the existing apperance of the moon through centuries of gazing at it? I’m not sure I buy that but can’t give a rational reason either way. Maybe another example that is more direct. One of my favorite places to eat in Atlanta is a mexican restraunt on the east side of town, if you can find a table there in the evening you can sit up on the roof and watch the sunset behind the city skyline. The last time I was there however someone a block over had put up a giant billboard that significantly obstructed the view and somewhat lessened the experience. Obviously the owner of the property on which the billboard has every right to set up a billboard on his property, but under libertarian theory that property doesn’t extend up into space indefinately. I think a very strong argument could be made, at least in a libertarian society, that my restraunt had “homesteaded” the empty space above the property now occupied by a billboard. Afterall they did design/renovate their building to provide patrons with a scenic view. Can one “own” a view… or the empty space between your property and the view in question?

“#

It would seem this topic brings similar arguments like the earlier article about zoning in Anarchotopia. It would also seem W. Block might agree with me about solar energy – it’s a form of commons that people can enjoy but can’t yet homestead. Hence if a guy has solar panels on his roof and gets ‘free’ electricity then he’s taking from the commons and hasn’t homesteaded anything. If a building developer erects an apartment building large enough to block out 90% of the sunlight of the man’s house in a way that his solar panels are effectively useless then tough luck. It would be the same as if a guy would take his boat out onto a nearby island and admire the flora and fauna for free. Suppose one day he finds the island covered in resorts and what he used to do for free now costs money lest he becomes a trespasser. Tough cheese, it wasn’t his island to begin with.”

I recall Murray Rothbard addressing this point as well, but I think he disagreed with this conclusion. I believe it was in this:

http://mises.org/daily/2120

but I could be mistaken.

Joe B said: “But we all know that the moon is the property of the US Government.”

I don’t know that. When the Chicoms put a man on the moon, how is the US government going to stop them? By the time they get to that point, the China will be militarily superior to the US.

I’d like to make a note on

“[...] Why not favor a face for the Moon that was actually designed to appeal to as many people as possible instead of something totally random?”

Note that the “something totally random” has been appealing to quite a few. One group are writers and many more readers. I do question if anything else but the natural face of the moon would actually appeal to more people.

Horst Muhlman,

So private property exists only to the extent that one can use force to secure it ?

Does that mean that if one can use force to acquire property, he also becomes the owner of this property because now he has the force to keep it ?

So property “rights” rests only on might !

In one of the lectures on Mises.org, Walter Block spoke about the homesteading of “noise rights” in an area. Couldn’t advertising on the moon be considered a similar violation of viewing rights? Billions of (living) people have been enjoying viewing the moon just the way it is for quite some time now. I realize this notion could more than likely cause problems in other areas, such as for colonization…

By the way, I’m not suggesting that some government could legitimately prohibit this form of advertising on behalf of the so-called “public” without there being an actual complaining party.

And of course, there’s always ostracism.

filc,

I suppose, the moon surface for advertisement would be a so called “scarce resource.” As such, the market would set the price for it. You would be a player in the market as any other company. Regarding Moon Publicity, I suppose, it goes along a similar reasoning: if you bring up there the technology, they would have a competitor. Between you and Moon Publicity would win who gets the price right.

I dislike this idea as much as most here, and it’s a pleasant suprise so see so much objection to it. I wouldn’t have expected it, I agree with a previous commentator: all this proves is that the idea of homesteading in the Rothbardian sense leads to silly conclusions.

Fortunately, any company with enough money to pay for such an experiment would have be somewhat well known itself, in which case I daresay there are rapidly diminishing returns to advertising. Moreover, the risk involved with such an idea are so high that no established company would want to take it.

To be honest, I’m curious to know how much this would cost, because I’m guessing you could get a huge amount of advertising space on the earth for far less. Space that allows greater flexibility and more profitability.

Some dude,

I was going to bring up The Tick, as that is the first thing that came to my mind, too.

Thedo:

“What’s so silly about the conclusion? The west area of my town used to be a pleasant, uninhabited grass plain. Good for running around, having a picnic. Now it’s a residential area with businesses, where more people can live and have their wants satisfied. Beautiful “nature” is gone; of course, it’s only “natural” human beings would satisfy their wants, so who’s to decide what gets used? The voluntary actions of individuals, of course.”

The use of terms like “voluntary” here are nothing more than appeals to terms that libertarians find pleasing. I certainly haven’t voluntarily foregone my ability to look up and see moon that isn’t horribly disfigured.

Block is clearly cherrypicking his examples of when easements apply. In order to salvage his theory of private roads he uses it, here the same theory seems absent.

Classical Liberalism Protection
Thursday, July 23, 2009

Is Space Exploration Wasteful And Used For Propaganda Purposes?

In a classical liberalism society there will be no behemoth government with control of vast resources to enable it to conduct stellar boondoggles!

In a classical liberalism society individuals will have various degrees of wealth and may be able to form some kind of contractual agreement with others to use their wealth to mobilize resources for experimental enterprises in space, not for pomp and ceremony but because it serves the consumers on our planet.

In a enlightened classical liberalism society the greatest arena of endeavor will be for the advancement of civilization on this wonderful planet.

Are there ‘scientists’ who object to this? Your pet projects are no more valid than any of the other special interests that need coercion to fund it.

Peace and prosperity cannot ever be achieved from coercion. If your scientific mind cannot understand this than it is very obvious that funding any of your self-serving ideas would be harmful.

My message to PR specialists everywhere:

Don’t even think about altering the lunar landscape in any way. If I look up and see the Double Arches above me, I’ll never eat another French fry again.

People are mixing up aesthetics with ethics for sure.

‘That factory is ugly, we shouldn’t allow people to build it. At least, keep me from seeing it.’

To claim that no one can homestead certain commons because it would be displeasing violates private property rights, doesn it? Isn’t that simply a group of people are using force to stop someone from using his own private resources on a place not private owned? I thought a simple rule of thumb in Anarchotopia is that if it’s not your property and no one is aggressing then you should keep your mouth shut. To say something is technically right but is visually or audibly offensive just because you don’t like it invites ridiculous political correctness to crop up. Can a man be told not to wear a pink shirt or else? Can a mother be told to shut up her crying baby or else?

A simpler trade off is that those who use the commons don’t directly physically interfere with another person’s private property. A person has no right to complain about the noise about an airliner as it’s not his atmosphere. If the same person’s house is getting physically damaged by extreme vibration or the person is showing early signs of hearing loss caused by an airliner flying too close then the same owner has the right to intervene.

russ wrote:

What’s so silly about double arches, or a Windows logo, on the Moon??? You’re joking, right?

Here’s another possibility for the sci-fi/David Bowie fans amongst you. What if somebody *bought* the moon, and then *moved* it? That would possibly cause horrible tidal waves. Would this be permissible, according to libertarian doctrine?

No. He would not be able to buy it unless someone else already owned it, and hence already held the right to move it. But nobody else does, so he can’t. the question is moot.

Someone else mentioned the question of a new high-rise blocking a neighbour’s sunlight on his solar panels, and declared that the neighbour has no right to stop him. I disagree. The neighbour was ALREADY enjoying the use of sunlight on his solar panels before the high rise came along. the neighbour therefore has the right to block the construction or claim compensation for the loss of what he already had. If the high rise was erected first, and then the neighighbour bought the plot next door, he can’t demand the high rise’s demolition because he now wants to erect solar panels.

On the same principles, all the inhabitants on earth already enjoy the moon’s gravitational effect and have come to expect its continued presence. If anyone wanted to buy the moon and move it, he would have to negotiate with every single inhabitant on earth to get all of them them to agree to his proposal to move it. ONly then could he be said to own the right to move it. The sheer impractibality of this likewise makes the question moot.

As for the idea of advertising on the moons surface and leaving it in its current orbit, why not? who has any right to stop whoever gets there first?

However, before anyone contemplates doing so, they would do well to consider the colossal cost of getting there, and the cost of earthmoving, (moonmoving?) on a large enough scale to make the results visible to th enaked eye from earth. And having quantified that, square it against the return it is likely to generate in increased sales.

If the responses on this forum are anything to go by, I rather suspect that it would manifest itself in DECREASED sales. Hence,possibly the biggest single example of mal-investment in history, dwarfing even NASA’s shuttle programme.

Having now considered this possibility, I find myself almost hoping that someone will do it , so we can see what the outcome will be. I’d just hope its something clever like johnny walker’s elegantly dressed silhouette, and not that awful M or the dreadful tick.

I think this is a moot point:

There is/are already a/some company(s) out there selling moon real estate to ready and willing buyers.

http://www.lunarproperties.com/

On another note, just out of curiosity, if I purchase a piece of property on earth, why is it that I have not “purchased” the air and space rights above it. Now, I know some of you real smart people posting here will say that my “space rights” change on a continuing basis as the earth rotates and revolves through space. But, in simplistic terms, by “space rights” I mean my view of space at any given time. Yes, I know; this post needs to be developed more, and contains a fallacy or two, but…..

mushindo wrote:

“No. He would not be able to buy it unless someone else already owned it, and hence already held the right to move it. But nobody else does, so he can’t. the question is moot. ”

What if somebody else “homesteaded” it, and “improved” it by putting a huge … oh, I dunno, AT&T logo on it. Then somebody who didn’t like the moon looking like the Death Star bought it from the previous owner. He did a cost / benefit analysis and decided that if he bought up a bunch of land that would become prime ocean front property after the tidal waves (ala the Superman movie with Gene Hackman), it would be cheaper to just move the moon than to erase the logo.

I can’t see how anyone who follows Rothbardian libertarian principles could object to this. The moon was properly homesteaded, then properly sold. The owner simply moved his property, which he surely has every right to do. Other people claiming the right to the gravity produced by the moon means that they are claiming control over somebody else’s property, at least to the extent that it cannot be moved. They could claim that they have “homesteaded” the gravity by relying on it before, but homesteading traditionally involves adding labor to something, not just relying on it.

If this kind of obviously ridiculous outcome is what can come of pure Rothbardian theory, I would have to agree that it serves as a proof of the fundamental absurdity of the theory.

“Someone else mentioned the question of a new high-rise blocking a neighbour’s sunlight on his solar panels, and declared that the neighbour has no right to stop him.” – Mushindo.

T’was me. I say a homesteader can’t engage in ‘postive’ damage, i.e. his actions cause direct damages to others’ property unless they’re ready to compensate the victims. However, I don’t believe a homesteader has to worry about ‘negative’ damage, i.e. someone else has lost personal access to the commons which they didn’t bother to homestead (or alternatively couldn’t).

For example, in the case of ‘Moon-moving’, I would regard any (literal) tidal waves that was caused by the gravitional shift would be ‘positive’ damage and would require compensation. (Or deter someone from wanting to homestead and move the Moon.) Yet if the gravitional shift caused no damage as such but the tides cease to operate and all those who benefitted from tidal action (e.g. a tidal power station, surfers) would suffer from ‘negative’ damage and tough luck to them.