The natural rules are pretty simple. First, if nobody owns something you come across you may take possession (claim) it as your own with only one provision, it must be reasonable. This leads to conflict since reasonable is subject of argument including argument by the unreasonable. Further, not making claims is immoral since it denies the wealth that comes from ownership. Tyrants will argue that only a select class may make claims which is utterly false and inherently evil.
Second, if something is owned, others can not take it. Very simple. Too simple for lawyers and politicians (but I'm being redundant.).
Let's hear what others have to say...
the Act purports to create property rightsIt can't create that which already exists. That's why natural rights are inalienable. John Locke could have told us that if Jefferson hadn't messed it up. Laws can only make this explicit, not allow or disallow. Well, bad law can disallow natural law but that's like declaring pi equal to three.
the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries and shall be the province of mankindCase in point. The person that wrote this should be whipped within an inch of their life. Let me translate... all these interest should have a say meaning you don't own it ...and pi equals three. To be clear, this violates natural law.
all states shall have free access to all areas of celestial bodies.Including private property? No, because this formulation denies private property (and therefore is invalid.)
mandates the authorization and continually supervision of non-governmental entitiesEver heard nanny more clearly explained? Shouldn't that be continual?
What this means is that private entities cannot own real property in outer spaceIt denies natural rights which are superior and inalienable. Both treaties should be laughed out of existence. However keeping governments from making claims that lead to war is still a good idea.
jurisdiction ... include the personnel, component parts, and payload aboard a spacecraft
As long as this does not violate inalienable natural law. I hate that I even have the need to keep drumming this point. This should be common knowledge understood by everybody. Go back and read those first two points.
exclusive safety zones
If you harass someone in the vastness of space, you deserve whatever happens.
A tension exists between the Article IX guarantee of freedom from harmful interference and the Article I guarantee of free access to all areas of celestial bodies.
No kidding. Morons!
Because the law they wrote has inherent contradictions and violates extremely simple principles in order to propagate irrational platitudes.