Not yet, but people are working on that. But given such difficulties, even you must admit that would-be capitalist entrepreneurs should be given as free a hand as possible, free of encumbrances like royalties, license fees, tariffs, and taxes that make a borderline proposition impossible.

Whether there's been too little or too much development here on Earth is a question everyone must ask themselves. As for the Moon, I'm tending to come around to your way of thinking. When Ronald Brak first asked where space exploration would be at if the world just gave the Moon to the US in the 1960's without a fight, I glibly responded that there would be thriving "incipient colonies" by now. Then I back pedaled and suggested that there at least would have been permanently manned stations on the ground for decades by now. But the more I think about it, the US would have relaxed and still sacrificed NASA's budget for Vietnam. That's because the US would have achieved it's primary goal--keeping the Moon out of totalitarian hands. The only way the US would have kept going is if the Russians went for broke, and refused to quit, and continued to set about perfecting a sovereign claim to the Moon. The US never really wanted the Moon for itself; but it was going to make damn sure that no one else got it either. Giving the whole Moon to the US would have had the same effect as signing the OST. So yes, I can see how massive land holdings can lead to a monopoly--Pliny the Elder complained about six individual Romans owning the continent of Africa. So the effects could be as bad if the entire Moon was controlled by one or a very few narrow interests. What is needed is healthy competition. Something more than prize gimmicks worth a paltry tens of millions of dollars.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin