Private Property Rights and Asteroid Mining

The US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (the Space Act), which President Barack Obama signed shortly before Thanksgiving, acknowledges certain critical things regarding private enterprise and solar system resources. One of those critical things is this:

Any asteroid resources obtained in outer space are the property of the entity that obtained them, which shall be entitled to all property rights to them, consistent with applicable federal law and existing international obligations.

Naturally, others who lack the capacity to reach the asteroids (our own capacity, so far, is limited; the law was enacted in the expectation that our capacity would expand in the reasonably nearby future), demur from our new law: it violates international law, they claim. Sa’id Mosteshar, a Board Member of the London Institute of Space Policy and Law, is one such:

It is my opinion that any US entity obtaining asteroid resources would be in contravention of international law, as would the government for permitting it. The Treaties governing space activities do not give the US that right, and the US government cannot assign to its citizens rights that it does not have.

Indeed, he argues that the asteroids are

not subject to national appropriation.

Mosteshar is right, but he plainly doesn’t understand how wrong that makes him.

It isn’t government enterprise that would be doing the exploration and exploitation governed by the Space Act. It’s private enterprise.

We’ve understood since Locke articulated the concept all that time ago that governments don’t have rights to give or withhold. Already endowed in each individual one of us by dint of our existence is a set of rights. We then grant certain lesser rights, authorities, and privileges to our governments in order that those governments can do what they were created to do: protect those larger rights that are our endowment.

One of those rights is our property in our own bodies and the ownership that gives us—each of us as individuals—in the fruits of our labor. Hence Mosteshar’s correctness, which makes him so wrong. Private property rights are not governments’ to give; of course, the US government cannot assign to its citizens that right: we already have it. Private enterprise exploration and exploitation are not subject to national appropriation because it isn’t national at all: it’s…private. Private exploration and exploitation of off-Earth resources—the asteroids, for instance—in no way establishes a national claim on those resources or the results of their exploitation. It just obligates the nation to move to protect those private property rights, held by its citizens, against interference by others.

Apology and Action

I would like to publicly renew my apology for this breach of trust and affirm my commitment to restoring it[.]

That’s what Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy said to a joint session of the House and Senate Homeland Security committees. The hearing focused on the Secret Service’s illegal search of Congressman Jason Chaffetz’ (R, UT) background. He also told the session that “dozens were being disciplined.” That discipline is limited to some agents—who are getting a whole 3-12 days of suspension—while no supervisors have been sanctioned.

We don’t even get to know who these few wrist-slappees are.

Clancy’s words of apology are exactly that: words. Nothing more. What is Clancy actually doing to clean up this stopped up sewer? Apparently not much.

Hillary Clinton’s Tax Proposals

And she has lots of them. I’ll list her tax credit proposals here.

  • $1,200 to offset the costs incurred by a family member caring for an aging parent
  • $5,000, refundable (it’s paid even to those who aren’t paying any income tax), for out of pocket health costs
  • $1,500 “apprenticeship” for businesses who hire entry-level workers, per such hire
  • 15% of the value of bonuses paid out if businesses create employee cost-sharing programs, paid to those businesses
  • Unspecified amounts for low-income homeowners who install solar panels

She also wants to expand these extant wealth redistributing credits:

  • Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
  • Work Opportunity Tax Credit
  • New Markets Tax Credit
  • American Opportunity Tax Credit
  • Wind, solar, ethanol tax credits

We don’t have enough pages to our tax code rules, you see, and we don’t have enough special exceptions to our tax rules and who pays—and who gets.

Never mind that none of this tax gerrymandering, none of this redistribution of OPM according to Progressive rules rather than the needs and wishes of those doing the earning, would be necessary with a low, flat rate tax code that admitted of no exceptions, no deductions, no credits, no loopholes, no gerrymandering; a tax code that would be used to fund government and not be abused for social engineering in accordance with Progressive demands.

Awfully Decent of Him

The Obama administration is offering to send state governors personalized reports with detailed information about refugees that have been resettled in their state so far this year.

Now, in the aftermath of 30 governors saying they’d do what they could to block resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states (because the governors don’t trust the adequacy of this administration’s vetting), President Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff Denis McDonough is saying that State will provide letters to each governor providing information “on refugees resettled in the last month and throughout the year so far.” Furthermore, State will maintain a passworded Web site on which it will make monthly updates to this information and that the updates would “break down refugees by nationality, gender and age range.”

That’s nice, but it begs a couple of questions. Why couldn’t this information have been made regularly available over the last seven years (or longer)? Why can’t those older data be provided now and kept current? Why can’t the currently promised data include resettlement location information?

Civil Disobedience

A college student who jumped over the White House fence while draped in an American flag was committing civil disobedience and had no plans to harm himself or others, his attorney said Sunday.

OK.  True civil disobedience includes suffering the consequences of breaking the law in that act of disobedience. This particular act of law breaking has the consequence of up to a year in jail.

That works.

[The student’s attorney Stephan] Seeger said his client had no intention of taking his life and was only trying to communicate the possible consequences of his actions.

Fine. Now the public can see for ourselves whether the absurdity of the situation or of the punishment truly exists. That’s what juries are for.