Germinating

John says,

I don't quite see your concept as an answer, and yet I believe you have the germ of something that could be the answer. The invention of the corporation and insurance was a major part of the reason that Europe came to dominate the world for a few centuries. Your concept might well develop into something with similar results.

He writes good stuff.

This is both encouraging and helpful, not to mention a bit frustrating. It is an important challenge. If I can define the concept well enough so that John accepts it, others will as well. Then this seed of an idea will grow and have a chance of fruition. What is John getting at?

What am I missing from John's perspective or what idea am I not expressing well enough? First I have to really understand John's point. Let's start with insurance.

A common misconception is that insurance is a lottery you can win. In theory it's only suppose to make you whole (or close to it) never better than you started (unless you're a mobster with a match.)

My understanding is it started with underwriting, literally. A person shipping goods would bring his cargo manifest to a place where people were willing to accept the risk of the cargo arriving safely for a negotiated percentage fee of the cargo. This management of risk allowed companies shipping cargo to remain in business after common disasters. Business stability is an advantage over others without this stability. Does this relate somehow to my concept? Yes, I believe it does in a number of ways.

What about incorporation? Interestingly, in some ways it plays a similar role by contributing to business stability. A corporation is a person in a legal sense. One that may live beyond it's founders. Death is disruptive. It also provides some protection of it's equity holders from law suits. I suspect this protection is much greater when a company is publicly held.

I'm fumbling in the dark a bit here. It is an imposition to ask, but I really need to know clear objections [hint, hint, nudge, nudge.] John's previous questions had a common theme... bullies. I believe insurance and incorporation continues that theme to some extent but perhaps from a different angle.

How does my settlement charter address those questions? What is it's legal foundation? I will start by making some assertions (providing easy targets!)

1. There are two types of law: man made and self evident. Man made law is often just tyranny in disguise. Especially when trying to apply it outside it's jurisdiction.
2. Anybody can claim anything, but for a claim to be valid it must stand up to challenges. All claims must be able to endure challenges.
3. Historically, claims have been successfully made even when another owner is known to exist; if it can be shown the owner has abandoned their own claim of ownership by neglect. Where there is no owner and the claim is reasonable it may have no challengers at all. By embracing the settlement charter now, it has a real chance to establish a precedent and define a reasonable claim size that applies everywhere in the universe. But more important, can be enforced everywhere. We already have enforcement where chain of title is clear. Chain of title always starts with a claim (or a grant which comes after a sovereign claim.)
4. The claim size was chosen for balance. Too large, it makes the land worthless. Too small and it doesn't provide sufficient funding. Agreeing to the terms means supply is restricted and value is increased. If you embrace the fundamental concept; the proper size would be the point of argument. 
5. Historically, both sovereigns and individuals have made land claims. In both cases, they may have lost those claims to challenges or retained them beyond any challenge until their ownership was protected by force of law.
6. Sovereigns do not have divine rights above individuals. What they have is greater force. Still, this force is part of reality and must be addressed properly.
7. The strongest claims are claims made under clearly defined terms agreed to by many people and secured by possession. This the settlement charter does.
8. The point of the settlement charter is not to put the force of law on the side of the colonists. That already exists because of thousands of years of historical precedent. The point is to use that force of law to establish the right of the transportation company to fund their operations by their own legal rights of ownership which includes the right to sell to others. Today many entities are trying to establish that they have the right to decide who owns what (or defacto ownership by saying no one can.) This is a battle that must be won or slavery will be the result (or perhaps just the current stagnation.)
9. Once ownership is established, property will have value and can increase in value in various ways. As more colonists arrive, they will create more value that will have a snowball effect.

Let me take a break for a moment and discuss these points a bit...

Yes (3) means I also believe that rocks under a sq. km. in surface area should be able to be claimed by a single person or corporation. Actually, most rocks will probably be claimed outside of any charter (it's a big solar system with lots and lots of rocks.)

Often people simply assume that chain of title (3) starts with a grant. This is false. It always starts with a claim. In the past, governments have made big claims and lots of grants which is what causes the confusion. It doesn't change the facts.

Is there a loophole in the charter (8) that would allow as person to transport themselves and claim 1001 sq. km? No (explicit in the next draft.) What would be the point? This is no different from anyone else making a claim outside the terms of the charter. We don't really care what non members do. They are not under the legal protection provided by the charter which gives value to their property, which in turn provides funding to get them there in the first place. It is not going to be a problem because the charter provides the motivation to get lots of colonist there. No other plan can snowball like this (including the Space Settlement Initiative which is the best of the rest.)

Ok. What about land value to speculators on earth? (without which, there really is no funding.) Let's say the state (any or all) says their title has no value and they don't really own anything. People assume that's possible, but really it is not. Yes, states may claim that, but it does not make it so. The registry insures this. As does it's membership (who are in possession if a reminder is required.) Over time, speculators and governments will have to recognize the title of those following a reasonable protocol. Speculators will take the lead and will trade long before government gets its act together. Also, funding is completely achieved at impulse buy levels (about $100 per half acre plot.) This is totally unlike some paper deed you can buy for $20 but is really worthless. This is backed by people enforcing their possession. Possession that is being developed at a cost that means they will gather with their community to enforce.

BTW, if the S.S.I. does get the blessing of government, which they must wait for, to grab AK sized territories, the members can mostly ignore this because they can easily show neglect over most if not all of that territory. It will of course, make selling parcels to speculators on earth problematic if there is a quarrel. The charter members will win simply because of where they are. Few colonists would choose to take a ride with S.S.I., or other plans, because the charter alternative is better for them. The charter produces a real land rush that no other plan can achieve because of it's inherent positive reinforcement. All colonists arrive with over a million dollars in assets (making them all millionaires [Ok. A bit of handwaving. But I can show it to be true, just not here and now.**] by the accrual accounting method) and each one increases the value of every other ones assets as more arrive.

You know, Trent perceived that my writing lacked depth which may be the problem for John as well. I hope this post helps in that regard? Please ask questions if I've missed the mark.

** Alright, here and now... Trent is such a [mean, mean, mean] bully. :-)
Assume worst case. A colonist arrives with nothing of value. No money in a bank on earth and poorly chosen items in their one metric ton allotment. Nothing... except the right to make a one sq. km. claim, which they do. Oh, and a million dollar space suit (but mentioning that is cheating, isn't it? Even if they could find a buyer, right? So let's say we forget I mentioned it.)

The good news is the rest of the colonists are not quite so stupid and do arrive with other assets. Most colonists will develop a few plots (out of almost 500 they now own) for resale. This begins the upward value of land based on location.

The transportation companies will be marketing their undeveloped land for sale for as much more than $100 per plot as they can get. That means Mr. Moron has a land valuation near $50,000. Not quite a million, but now I show how he gets there.

Mr. Moron doesn't have a home (with life support for four+) when he arrives, so he has to rent a place. Some good news, labor is in short supply so getting a job is no problem. He will be able to pay his rent and his utilities (water, power, oxygen, etc.) Until his first paycheck he can sell off a few undeveloped plots to get by, but should not make a habit of this.

Mr. Moron has an example in all his productive neighbors and realizes he can increase the value of his land with some simple labor starting with making a big ditch on one of his plots. Others are making homes for new arrivals that they will sell to them for about $100k (more or less, with better homes later) making a few percent profit on each ($2000 x 500 plots = our magic number, but not for poor Mr. Moron) and rolling over the cost of materials and labor so they have the funds to develop all their plots over time.

Anyway, Mr. Moron can make his ditch into a lessor valued property that can still sell for more than undeveloped property by selling it to other locals that will develop it further. Eventually, somebody develops a shirt sleeve mall that includes apartments for rent and Mr. Moron sells his space suit. By that time, most martians hardly ever use their space suits anyway except for the percentage that likes working out doors. Also, he may even be able to sell the dirt from the ditch to others that will process it (not for much, but loading a truck is worth something.)

Over time, even Mr. Moron's undeveloped property will sell for ten times what it started out as. That's the history of all properties near a growing town. He just has to hold on to most of it long enough.

Hey here's another thought... can you get a reverse mortgage on a space suit?

Update: Be sure to also read "Selling mars."