Haha the thing with owning something is that you have to back it up with some sort of punishment if someone where to take it from you

I agree with AlistairBrice. If history is a guide then one may stake a claim to territory but at the end of the day, whomsoever controls said territory through economic, diplomatic or militaristic means is the prevailing "owner" of said territory.

Silly humans and their need to own everything.

Ownership is not a natural order, it is simply an agreement, one says "I own this" and it takes another to believe that in order to make it so.

We evolved as a cooperate species of hunter-gatherers and this system has enabled us to rise to great heights.
However if we stop being cooperative, not only amongst ourselves but with the ecosystem within we exist, this system will collapse and we may well suffer extinction.
So perhaps the place to look for a fair legal system it might be wise to look to our roots as hunter-gatherers, which shaped our neurological makeup as well as our deep psychological instincts.
Remember we evolved in small groups of up to about 150 individuals, a tyrannical leader could be easily disposed of, this effect has been observed also amongst primates like Capuchin and other monkeys.
When agriculture enabled larger populations it also allowed the rise tyrants and their henchmen to exploit others through intimidation and then these tyrants had the gall to claim themselves to be anointed by Gods to be the noble, kings, emperors, lords, etc.
It's time to have a discussion about what will enable a more egalitarian future, Communism didn't work and unbridled capitalism has it's own inherent flaws of increasing wealth to the few at the expense of the many.
If you are interested in learning more you may find this banned TED Talk by billionaire Nick Hanauer interesting and informative;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g
Scientia Non Domus, (Knowledge has No Home)
antiguajohn

John Birck - You say "unbridled capitalism" is a problem? It might be if it existed. But it doesn't. Every capitalist country has hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations that control and direct companies, business activities, and capitalism in general. Right down the micro-managing level.

Completely fine with the U.S. economically developing the solar system to it's advantage. If another nation doesn't like that, then they can go to space and have at it.

What do you suppose will happen when somebody finally tells these greedy clowns that what they're doing ia akin to little kids sitting in their tree fort and deciding who wants to keep what part of Texas. They've never been there. They've seen westerns on TV, it looks empty, so they've decided to claim it for their own. Fellas, I'm afraid you might be in for a surprise.

The right thing to do, about buying, noting a survey, properly describing the same, and registering title - in a recognized and reasonable way, in a wise to distinguish the said real property, albeit real estate property, from each and every other kind of real property is and remains the protocol to follow, which has been gradually developed and perfected since ancient antiquity. However to hold, keep and defend the same does require a modicum of civilized co-operation, and not the least humane behavior. With a view to preserve the right of Liberty, Independence, and Freedom earned, gained, and won upon this Planet Earth, as well, as when brought to the instance of each other distinct, and clear celestial body identified, and knowable albeit.

The author, and every commenter, seems to be skipping the real implications of the 2015 interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty, as laid out in the 2015 S.P.A.C.E. Act. The key is treating Space, and all the bodies in Space, like we treat the Oceans beyond the 200 kilometer Economic Zones of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Today, I can go 1,000 kilometers West of the Portland Metro area in a fishing boat, catch whatever fish I can catch, and bring them back a few days later to the dock in Portland. By that evening people can have bought and begun eating those fish, with some of the proceeds going into my pocket. I can never own the place in the Ocean I caught those fish! I can never forbid others from fishing there!
Likewise, the 2015 S.P.A.C.E. Act simply allows miners to go to any body in Space, scrape whatever they can off the surface, and then deliver the water, the native metal bits, the carbonaceous kerogens, and anything else of value, to a space manufacturing center at, for example, the earth/Moon Libration Point #1, in between the earth and the Moon. They will have *no* more right to keep anyone else from setting up mining on the same moon, asteroid, or whatever, as long as their own equipment isn't fowled by the newcomers.
Neither the author nor the commenters seem to understand this aspect of harvest *without*ownership* is extremely old law, and well-known. It is *far* from impossible, having been followed on the sea for thousands of years. The only thing it does *not* help with is the grief of those who desire to control through political allocation all the wealth available to human society, through government regulations.
The 2015 S.P.A.C.E. Act allows the *best* definition of the industrial revolution to guide us, ....the one in 1884, by Arnold Toynbee:
"When a society moves from allocating resource use by custom and tradition (read here, politics) to allocating resource use by markets, it may be said to have undergone an industrial revolution."
No the Fredrich Engels definition of Industrial Revolution as the presence of 'magic hunks of stuff', like steam engines, railroads, and mass production lines, doesn't inform us us nearly so much about epochal industrial changes in human patterns of behavior, on the Earth, on the Seas, or in Space, as does Toynbee's definition.