New Mars Forums

I support my president and country most of the time militarily. The Iraq War was justified, but, I do not understand why he had to cower over at the UN headquarters and ask premission to invade. Saddam was a threat, and he may have helped al-Quieda. However, I do think that we're fighting for the wrong reason now: we should try to eliminate the threat and win the war that way, none of this 'US breast-feeding the world' stuff.
Bringing the republic, not "democracy", to the Middle East, the way it is now, is too fast and too soon. Look at Israel, the only republic (and not Muslim-majority nation in Mid East) in the area, they're hated and bullied in the area. The Islamic world cannot/will not accept the republic until one of two things happen:
1) Islam loses all influence in the Mid East, and some new religion comes to town
2) Western secularism flies right into the beast of anti-Westernism of the world
So, yeah, I support the war. But, we must remember that the Mid East isnt ready mostly for the republic, they need more or less a temporary pro-US congress and judges.

Hi, I'm spaceman9000 and I've been registered for maybe a month and I'm still getting to learn my way around. Anyway, I'm just wondering if anyone in this forum is like a libertarian, Objectivist, or of a similar viewpoint. I'm just trying to get a feel for the political climate I'm in here. So far, I've seen a mix. But, just calling the libertarians out to discuss and chat about Mars mission and settlement ideas. How to hear from y'all.
-Michael

Dook, I think your solution will work only if thats how the talents are naturally spread around in that way. Anything else sounds like "Affirmative Action". The people will need to do their job, so I say we shouldnt focus on race or gender.
Mundaka, Im skeptical about a Chinese launch before a private one. Keep up on the clothes idea.
I really think that you and Dook should seriously considering supporting/investing in a privately-funded mission.

Ya know, all this 'internationalism' and UN crap makes me sick.
First, we should get out of it and other international organizations, the UN hates even though we're the host country and the only power maintaning it. It would just be an intellectual, socialist organization without USA.
Second, we should privatize NASA and let corporations run the space race, give the era of Hughes and Linbergh return.
Another idea is for the United States to recognize patents for land and resources on the moon and Mars, corporations and new space trade orgnizations could turn those areas into profitable tourist and scientific destinations. Another idea, perhaps a bit futuristic, is Gerard O'Neill's 'Island One' free-floating colonies in orbit at L5, totally privatized of course.
Anyway, about this militarization of space, the investors, owners, and shareholders should have their property/investment protected. Who better then the US military? I mean I'm a strong individualist and hate fascism, but we will need a strong military presence on the Moon to protect the property and the people of the Moon.
The profitability of the moon has been on many occasions overestimated, and underestimated, the normal Zurbinian idea of lunar colonization was motivated by science (optical telescope array) and some industry (He3 mining and some metals. But, findings in the Apollo areas says that the moon lacks several elements we need (like C and N). Meanwhile, O'Neill's idea is that the moon should be mass mined at the industrial level to build the Island One settlement, the other elements could be imported as dirt and other building blocks.
I also say that these early space frontiers will originally settled by who history says likes to settle first: religious minorities (Pilgrims and Mormons), profit-seeking capitalists (Mass. Bay Co. or British East India Co.), and philosophical idealists (republicans, communists, or Ayn Rand Objectivists just to name a few). I'm myself a laiezz-faire libertarian who seeks TRUE economic freedom (from taxes and "social security") social freedom (I hate the pleasue-based culture, I say bring on the science/learning/innovation-based idealistic society of the Renissance) and am fascinated by Mars and the moon. Well, that says my agenda.
Whats yours for colonization?

Ok, first of all is this: the government shouldn't need half of my paycheck to pay for the essential things: like police, the military, and the court. Next, if I volunteer maybe 10-15% of my income to the government. I can do that. Does that mean that I necessarily like what the government spends it on, well, I can stop donating at any time to tell them that. But, since its forced, I basically dont have a specific say in where my hard-earned money goes. The only catch is this: I have a say where my money goes. This 'don't arrest me' stuff is dumb because, if I dont want to obey the law, I can just as well leave the country, or state, or city.

Let me ask you this: How do you know that the drugs out now arent fakes? I have heard that some FDA officals actually are on the bankroll of some food and drug companies and do them favors. One of these is that some dairy and meat companies develop the Food Pyramid that we "guide" our diet after.
Another one is the government subsudies to these industries. And, its not all the companies in the industry, but pre-selected companies chosen by these officals, and the competitors have regulations set on them and some innovation in that competitor may be stamped out as well.
Now, I dont know about you, but I think that these subsidies and letting the companies write the official books on diet, nutrition and medicine is a really really bad idea. Now, granted, my sources arent infallible (PETA and Kevin Trudeau), and I know that they try to pull an agenda on me, and I think their agenda is a bunch of bull****. But they do bring up an interesting thinking point: about the unholy alliance of meat, dairy, and drug industries with the government posing a serious threat to us.

No, no, no, you misunderstand the concept of competition. As I tried to state before, if some select companies/organizations have special government privilege, and the competitors, what message does that send to the consumers?
Competition drives prices down. The companies compete for YOUR business. They want YOU as a customer. They want YOU to be satisfied enough with your product to REFER it to others. I
counter your argument about school quality with this: shoes, harmless shoes, are the middle-class and below without shoes, or computers, we're obviously talking on this forum because of computers. Are they only in the hands of the rich? NO, they are mass marketed to EVERYONE, everyone wants to have a computer. The modern-day 'computer revolution' was possible because of the free market and the companies who wanted to bring this to the people & they do this by selling.
Are you against selling and marketing and profits?
Are you against the market, or what?
I'm confused at what you are getting at here.

One term: Private Property Rights. Air pollution is a violation of those rights. What I mean is that EVERYONE 'owns' the air. Its phyically impossible (unless you live in a pressured-dome, like in space) to seperate the air like siphoning off land or water to investors. Pouring toxins into the river is also a violation of these rights, IF the toxins touch your property unwillingly.
Let's say that I own 20 acres for my park thats open to everybody. If ACME manufacturing set up next door and used the river in between out lots for power, and I dont object, thats fine. But, the moment he puts toxins in and I dont want it to spread to my side, he should stop pouring the toxins in. But, with the government owning the land, they can do whatever on their land, and if it spreads to my land, thats my problem. Read the article, it discusses this further.
http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.shtml
As for the gasoline, again, COMPETITION, if I got jipped out of $25 for gas in my car, I will raise a compliant against the company. If they dont listen, I will take legal action. If that doesn't help, I'll buy gas elsewhere next time. I see it like this: if this company really is looking forward for themselves, they will get/produce low-price, high-quality, and sell it for a profit. If the need exists, the product will be bought. If not, it stays at the refinery. And, in turn, the gas station will sell the gas for lower prices so that MORE customers will buy, generating bigger profit In essence, everybody wins, provided that government stay out. Thats where the trem "lasieez-faire" comes in handy.

In addition to my previous post, I would like to add that solution #6 implies this: career politicans and political famliy powerhouses (the Bushs, Kennedys, etc.) would fade away and the era of statesmen (like Jefferson and Washington) would return. Part of this transistion is to establish this new frontier of exploration and colonization on Mars, the moon, the asteroid belt, and so on. The salary part means that politicans would serve the people voluntarly, after all, Hubert Hoover, the self-made millionaire, was president for free.
I just personally think that politicans should not need a paycheck, a huge pension, better-then-average health care, or other 'perks', and then complain about taxews being 'too low' and budget deficits. Just a thought.

Alright, I finally find libertarians at this site! Anyway, my solution is this:
1) eliminate ALL forms of compulsory taxes (sales, income, etc.), let people be charible to their government, not forced
2) privatize ALL government organizations EXCEPT the police, armed services, and the court - those are the ONLY purposes of government anyway
3) deregulate ALL industries and let the free market regulate itself through charters and competition
4) disband the FDA, FAA, FCC, and ALL other New-Deal era programs, because if no one noticed, the Great Depression ended a LONG time ago
5) stamp out welfare, food stamps, public schools, business subsidies, and other wasteful government controls on society
oh, yeah, and most importantly:
6) eliminate political party and lobbyist controls in government by cutting out political and lobbyist salaries

SpaceBull, I understand your concern of remote control and the robotic setup on Mars. But I say we should develop an AI for these robots. And as for the cash crop, how does rocket fuel sound? The ISPP plants discussed in The Case for Mars could be a common 'plantation' concept for the Red Planet. We take the CO2 out of the atmosphere (and together with imported H), transform it into CH4(methane) and O(Oxygen). The methane is your fuel and you can burn the oxygen, or for life support.
Another idea for a cash crop, once camp is set up, is the mass immigration of peoples into the New World, or tourism, or industrial goods once a factory exists. The list goes on and on, I cant even list all the options. But, I think Mars's real cash crop down the road will be its vicinity near the asteroids, which I think will really start up our new, premanent space age. But, as I try to stress, it all starts with the courage of some crazy pioneer and his/her investor.

I somewhat agree with you that it will take time before companies get to Mars. After all, Columbus got to the Americas by the financing of Queen Isabella in 1492, then the first settlers came starting in that next century. However, the progression of aerial technology from the days of horribly unsafe and scary airplanes of the Wright Brothers to the modern airplanes braking the speed of sound took maybe 40-50 years, no govenrment involvement. I think that progression of rockets to Mars to sending the first citizens to Mars will take more of this timeline, but only if NASA and its suboridents are immediately privatized. Your absolutely right in saying the government will get there first, but I add that government will only provide the money, a self-empolyed genius will start the actual, meaningful business of turning the Red Planet into our New World.

I somewhat agree with SpaceNut that 'someone will find tablets' and start a new religion. Joseph Smith founded the Mormons in New York, then went westward to found the state of Utah. The Puritans were founded in Britain, left for the Netherlands, but effectually (to perserve culture) moved to the Americas to establish a home. Personally, I think that religion will go with humans everywhere, some religions will their communities in one area, another religion elsewhere. I also think it will be the same with political and philosophical views: maybe Communist/Socialist regime in the north, and Capitalist republic in the south. I see it like the Greek city-states, but I guess history will judge the impact of religion on the Mars colonies, and elsewhere as we branch out.