You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Hey everyone its me again... I skipped over alot of the thread and im sure it was adressed... but here is my 1.5 cents, with "whats his face" that debated about a martian mission this morning saying that it would contaminate mars germ wise and landscape wise. On the germ thing, wouldnt the most resilient of germs have to be sheilded from Mar's UV light in order to survive ? and on the second note, Ima green so thats my opinion on that.
And if you were wondering why i didnt post for a while, I just felt out classed by everyone's debating.
{{Runnerbrax: "Surfer So Sad" ?! What is this? Look, if you can't respect people who don't share your opinions, I suggest you stop posting! Now that has been taken care of...}}
I apologize,no disrespect intended. I read fast through the posts and thought that, that was your forum name. And to prevent myself from falling back into the hole i created... end post
i don't if my previous post made it to the thread so i will re-post. First off Wushu would ROCK on Mars im an avid martial artist and martial arts fan so i know how cool that would be. And one more thing, i don't know about you but iwould love to see rollerball tried again. it almost flew here in the states and i think it would be cool myself to have go over to the red planet but i know it is just a futile wish.
surfer so sad has a nice point but (hopefully not sounding like a dick that i have been told i am) not everyone will want to be "educated" enough to run a government. There will always be people who just want to follow as long as they are hal-way happy with theway things are running. That was a good idea but a preverbial lottery for office doesn't look to effective to me.
how about rollerball, that almost took off in america? I liked the idea how about ya'll ?
now that ranger and space psi-brain put it that way, its sounds pretty futile that we are arguing what we are arguing. but if someone is going to argue about it, it might as well be us. hehe. With everyform of government as pointed out earlier, is fallible. because a human being created it. With communism nobody will notice if you skim a couple million off the top, same thing with all of them really. BUt... i really don't know what i am saying here, i am taking an advanced governemnt class at myy college now and hopfully by the end of the semester be able to argue with the best of you. Oh and i sincerly apologize for not posting sooner. LAst few weeks have been pretty frelled up.
I read the book and I have to dissagree, that was a horrible idea.
hey, your talking aboutmy Marine brothers, you better watch what your saying. If i do remember correctly we liberated the Afghanis' from a tyrant and are in the hunt of another one right now...
i guess we agree on something now don't we josh ? haha this may sound stupid but Mouse(the dorky kid from the matrix said it best. "To deny our own impulses is to deny the one thing that makes us human." Human nature is an impulse and that is why capitalism is the most succesfull type of econmy out there, it is fuled by the need to be the next "Bill Gates".
Amen to private property and trashing our current space laws
I don't know what you guys are going to say about this but I'm probably going to step on everyone's toes with this statement. We can't have a world government. Or should i say, one government to rule the whole planet of mars is a EXTREMLEY absurd idea. Do you think China or Argentina would like to be ruled by Canadians ? IF us Mars freaks do get our way and go to mars i beleive the MARssociety would start thier own government somewhere. newmars would start their own such and such and so for. There is no way the entire planet would agree to be ruled by one government. There are too many people and ideas to cater too. Thats the one thing i didn't like about KSR's books, its too utopian.
Latin
What i don' get is why everyone thinks that this mission has to be sent straight from earth? Couldn't we assemble the ship like a puzzle here on earth and on the routine space missions, send it up peice by peice to put it together ? I think that is one way to lower the cost. I saw we send seven people on one ship. That way if a "MExican standoff" happens between the crew members it will be uneven there fore making it unbalanced. Ya'll know what I'm sayin ?
I may start to confuse myself while in the middle of this rebuttle so i take one thing at a time. The Cuban people as a whole do not like the way their government is going. Senor Castro is the president because he rules with an iron fist. That is why no one speaks out against him, they are afraid for their lives and their loved ones lives.
Now it is obvious you have studied anarchism at its fullest since youl diced me pretty well in your rubuttal. But if you have many decentralized "colonies" on Mars so to speak, who would take care of trading with neiboring colonies ? How would you set up "safe houses" for travelers or neiboring (sp!) colonies if a wicked sandstorm picked up ? Or pirates who preyed on little colonies like the ones your talking about ? This is more of a rehtorical question and I would tell you my answer but you probably already know and I sort of know what you would say but i would like to know. Im not trying to sound like a dick, just curious.
The thing is, communists would argue that the soviet practice of communism doesn't fit communism (look at Cuba, it's quite different there), and anarchists would certainly say that your definition of anarchism doesn't fit that of the definition created by hundreds of years of anarchist texts, mainly because anarchism isn't society without rules; if anything, it's society with rules that apply to everyone equally.
But communism is a utopian society where everyone likes whats happeneing and wants it to stay. Cubans in a whole DO NOT enjoy communism.
Communism in its whole basically says "In order to be successfull the whole country has to take it for the team" It just doesn't work.
Yet Corporate welfare is all of us 'taking one for the team' too. There is no difference, jsut different priorities.
As always, some priorities are 'better' than others. And some priorities are more worthwhile than others too.
Government, in any form, may only work, and will only 'work', as long as enough people go along with it. How that equilibrium is reached, or the best way to reach it though is entirely open to interpretation.
I think it was clark who said that heirarchy (sp?) is in human nature. I tottaly agree. Now that relates to the quote above on saying "...only work as long as people go along with it." I agree with you to. When taking a small colony of people with similair ideals, likes, and dislikes who all know and understand what a communism is I think it would become a very succesful establishment. But when you mix "Elvis fans" with "Mettalica fans" (bear with me here) not everyone is going to like a communistic government. Its in our human nature not to be equal. Just look at history in the past, what 3000 years ? Its the same all throughout history, there has to be a heirarchy in order for a government to work. And in (God Bless America lol) a Republic with democratic aspects heirarchy is everywhere. Take your average sacker a Wall-Mart who is "quasi" in charge of him ? The cashier. Who is in charge of all the cashiers ? The CSM Customer Sales Manager. Who is in charge of the CSM's ? The head CSM, next in line ? Customer Sales Representative, then Assistant manager and then manager. Now without that sacker having anybody to naswer to he could tell a customer off (coming from experience...don't do that) and not fear retribution from anyone in that heirachal list i mentioned. That was a rebuttal to whomever was promoting anarchy.
Now onto your secod rebuttal. I don't know what half the words meant (only a freshman in college) so i can't really rubutt that. Thank you for you post
Look, even though this is my first post and I know how much a "newbie" 's opinion matters. I don't think any form of government would work except for (forgive my American thoughts) a Republic with democrtatic aspects. Now that said, lets debunk the following other forms of government.
Anarchy: First off Anarchy whouldn't even be considered a form of government. It is a temporary state of human for lack of a better word, "existance". Say the Honorable Mr. Buch is killed as well as his joint-cheifs, delegates, generals, and anybody else in direct sovereghnty(pardon the spelling) of our government. What would happen? For a couple of hours a week at the most our country would be without a ruling body. "Anarchy" as defined would ensue. But after that, someone not in the "direct line" in our military, probably a Colonel or a Brigadier General would assume command and declare martial law until everything got sorted out. Hypothetically, if we went months without a ruling body, a foreign country would either step in and help, or kick the dog stuffing out of us and make our continent whatever their government is. "IF" that didn't even happen on the smallest level, cities, neighborhoods (spelling), even streets would band togerther making a "quasi" city-state and make rules to govern their lands. IF that didn't happen, you are reading a book and need to stop thinking, "Man that would be cool if..."
Communism: Why Russia failed and China is still a quasi Communism. I'm not going to go in to this area much because i havn't studied Russian and Chinese history that much. There are several reasons why Russia failed starting with good ol' Lenin the the last peasant under Kruscheve. First off the only economy was the military eceonmy, the military provided everything for everybody. That just doesn't work. Other examples of a Military ruling a country. Sparta, while they lasted much longer than our Commie buddies (I capitalized Commie because i do have somewhat respect for them) did was because they had a MUCH more educated country. But it was doomed to fail from the start (that is why Athens basically populated the world so to speak, they had a republic which was not ruled by a military). The second reason why Communistic Russia failed. Human desire/heart/whatever you call it was forced under the rug. Communism in its whole basically says "In order to be successfull the whole country has to take it for the team" It just doesn't work. And finally the third reason why Russian and Sparta failed was because Athens "outspent" them government wise, and economic wise, we pretty much did the same thing back in the 70's and mostly 80's. We kept spending and the Russians basically wrote rubber checks for half a decade.
In conclusion, the only true succesfull government is a Republic with democratic aspects. If you think you have a type of government thats better than a democratic republic then please e-mail me and tell me a bout it and I will debunk you because everything basically falls under those three categories... And yes a Monarchy is quasi Communism.
Pages: 1