Techno-libertarianism: Economics and the moon

 Should the US create a base on the moon and claim territory on the moon?

No to a U.S. territorial claim; yes to unleashing a private, competitive lunar economy with minimal state friction. That path best aligns with techno-libertarian first principles—strong property rights, open competition, voluntary coordination, and a state limited to protecting liberty and enforcing contracts. [1]

Why not a U.S. territorial claim?

• Sovereign claims entrench bureaucracy, invite rent‑seeking, and chill entrepreneurial entry—exactly the dynamics techno‑libertarians reject. [1]
• A monopoly “national base” risks central planning and political gatekeeping over landing rights, resources, and standards, rather than permissionless innovation. [1]

What to do instead (policy blueprint):

• Recognize private homesteading and resource rights: Define clear, transferable rights to land use and extracted resources based on first use/improvement, with non‑aggression and non‑interference as core norms. The state’s role is adjudication and protection of those rights—not ownership. [1]
• Replace “claiming territory” with a neutral registry: Stand up an open, market‑neutral claims/notice registry (ideally on a public ledger) for surveyed plots, easements, safety zones sized by objective risk, and time‑boxed development milestones to prevent squatting. [1]
• Buy services, don’t build empires: Shift federal spending from owning a base to prize purses, milestone payments, and long‑term service contracts (power, comms, ISRU oxygen/water, cargo, life support). Government as customer, not operator. [1]
• Streamline the rulebook: One‑stop licensing with firm timelines; broad presumption of legality for new methods unless they violate rights; sunset clauses on restrictive rules; mutual recognition of private certification and insurance markets. [1]
• Private law, fast resolution: Default to private arbitration for commercial disputes; allow choice‑of‑law and pre‑agreed remedies; require bonding/insurance to internalize externalities (e.g., plume damage, debris). [1]
• Open, voluntary standards: Encourage interoperable docking, power, and safety protocols via industry consortia—not government mandates—so many firms can plug into a competitive lunar services web. [1]
• Civil liberties first: Any government presence should be barred from surveillance creep; settlers and crews choose their governance charters, association, and exit options consistent with non‑aggression. [1]

What could exist on the Moon under this model:

• Multiple privately financed habitats, depots, and mines competing on cost and reliability, each with transparent, tradable use‑rights rather than a single national enclave. [1]
• A “Lunar Entrepreneurial Zone” anchored by open infrastructure (navigation, comms, rescue) procured as services, where newcomers don’t need political favors to participate. [1]

Bottom line

• Don’t plant a flag and claim the Moon. Create the legal and market conditions for thousands of flags of private enterprise to emerge—and let peaceful competition, property rights, and voluntary exchange do the heavy lifting. That’s the techno‑libertarian route to a thriving, free lunar civilization. [1]

Sources

1

A Techno-Libertarian Manifesto based on the science of politics by Michael Perel, M.D. https://manypossibilities1.blogspot.com/2026/03/a-techno-libertarian-manifesto-based-on.html

In addition:

Here’s a deeper, practical roadmap consistent with techno‑libertarian principles for enabling lunar bases and property without sovereign land grabs.

Core stance (reaffirmed)

• Reject national territorial claims; enable private, voluntary, competitive development under strong, transferable property and contract rights, with the state limited to defense of liberty, contract enforcement, and adjudication. [1]
• Treat government as an anchor customer (prizes, milestone payments, service contracts), not a monopoly operator or central planner. [1]

Legal-architecture blueprint

• Property formation by use and improvement: Recognize claims based on first use and demonstrable improvements (habitats, excavation, power, comms), with clear boundaries, survey data, and development milestones to prevent squatting. Rights are alienable, divisible (surface, subsurface, easements), and time‑boxed if idle. [1]
• Non‑aggression plus safety zones: Define safety buffers sized by objective risk models (e.g., plume ejecta, dust, thermal, RF), not by arbitrary fixed radii, and record them as temporary easements that shrink with better tech. [1]
• Global, neutral notice/registry: Stand up an open, content‑addressed registry (public ledger) to post surveys, claims, easements, approach corridors, and development milestones; anyone can read/verify, no one can gatekeep. [2]
• Polycentric dispute resolution: Default to private arbitration providers chosen by contract ex‑ante; allow choice‑of‑law, schedule‑of‑damages for common disputes (dust contamination, line‑of‑sight blocking, debris). Awards enforceable via bonding, escrow, and reputational networks. [2]

Governance on the Moon (voluntary, exit‑friendly)

• Charter‑based settlements: Each habitat/minesite adopts a transparent charter covering membership, safety, labor standards, and exit rights; residents consent as a condition of entry and can freely exit to competing communities. [1]
• Competing standards bodies: Docking, power, life‑support, and comms interfaces emerge from voluntary industry consortia; adoption is market‑driven by reliability and cost, not mandate. [2]
• Minimal public goods, procured privately: Navigation beacons, search‑and‑rescue protocols, and time signals are purchased as services via long‑term contracts and open APIs. [1]

Financing and incentives

• Replace programmatic funding with prizes and advanced market commitments: Prizes for first oxygen delivery, lowest‑cost kWh, dust‑safe landing, in‑situ spare‑parts printing; multi‑year service commitments for power, water/oxygen, comms, and cargo. [1]
• On‑chain instruments and DAOs: Let ventures issue tokenized royalty streams (e.g., per‑kg of water or oxygen delivered) and use DAO‑governed maintenance funds for shared assets like landing pads and roads. [2]
• Insurance and bonding markets: Require operators to post bonds and carry third‑party liability coverage; develop parametric insurance keyed to telemetry (e.g., plume impulse, dust concentration) for fast, apolitical payouts. [2]

Practical implementation steps for the U.S. (no sovereignty claims)

• Month 0–12
  • Pass a Lunar Homesteading and Resource Rights Act that: (a) recognizes private use‑and‑improvement claims; (b) creates a U.S. legal safe harbor for trading those rights; (c) mandates open notice in a neutral registry; (d) defaults disputes to accredited private arbitration. [1]
  • Launch prize programs and 10‑year service procurements for power, life‑support consumables, regolith handling, and dust‑mitigation tech; government buys outcomes, not designs. [1]
  • Establish a voluntary certification marketplace for safety and environmental stewardship (dust, effluents, RF), with mutual recognition across providers. [2]
• Year 1–5
  • Operationalize the global open registry; integrate survey/orbital data; provide standard claim templates, safety‑zone calculators, and API access for insurers/arbitrators. [2]
  • Stand up lunar commercial courts as a narrow backstop for appeals and award enforcement; everything else routes to private arbitration. [1]
  • Scale a “Lunar Entrepreneurial Zone” model: open access to shared pads, power, and comms via posted, non‑discriminatory rates; ownership remains private, access governed by contract. [1]

Model artifacts you can use

• Sample Lunar Claim Notice (filed to the registry)
  • Coordinates and surveyed boundary (with uncertainty bounds)
  • Basis of claim: use/improvement log, evidence payloads
  • Safety easements and approach corridors with expiry/resize conditions
  • Chosen arbitration provider, governing commercial code, bonding details
  • Environmental constraints accepted (dust plume limits, EM emissions) [2]
• Standard clauses to reduce conflict
  • Plume and dust liability: strict liability beyond agreed thresholds; pre‑funded escrow for third‑party harm
  • Line‑of‑sight and RF interference: first‑in‑time priority plus tradable easements
  • Rescue and mutual aid: voluntary reciprocity with capped, pre‑priced compensation [2]

Addressing common objections (through markets, not mandates)

• “This will be a lawless land rush.” Answer: It’s a governed market—clear registries, bonds, insurance, and fast arbitration internalize externalities better than slow, politicized command systems. [1]
• “A national base ensures safety.” Answer: Safety scales faster via competing private certifiers and transparent incident data; the state’s comparative advantage is adjudication and rights protection, not one‑size‑fits‑all engineering. [1]
• “What about equity and access?” Answer: Prizes and open infrastructure contracts let new entrants compete on merit; voluntary commons (pads, power, comms) with posted terms beat gatekeeping. [2]

Measurable success criteria

• Time to first registered claim and first transfer of rights between private parties. [2]
• Dollars of private capital leveraged per public prize/AMC dollar. [1]
• Arbitration cycle time and insurance payout latency for dust/plume incidents. [2]
• Number of interoperable providers for power, comms, life support, and cargo. [1]

Bottom line
If you want a thriving lunar civilization, don’t plant a flag—plant enforceable property rights, permissionless enterprise, voluntary standards, and fast private law. Make the state the guarantor of liberty and honest contracts, not the owner‑operator. [1][2]

Sources

1

A Techno-Libertarian Manifesto based on the science of politics by Michael Perel, M.D. https://manypossibilities1.blogspot.com/2026/03/a-techno-libertarian-manifesto-based-on.html

2

Techno-libertarian manifesto, part 2 by Michael Perel, M.D. https://manypossibilities1.blogspot.com/2026/04/techno-libertarian-manifesto-part-2.html