New Mars Forums

Lest my silence be taken as confirmation, fear not for neither is forthcoming. You've already made too good an impression to be a liberal airhead and baton cracking is just sooo second millenium. 

Well, probably about the mass rallies part. Unless the UN or the French start acting up.   :laugh:  Just to make 'em nervous...

Good points Yang Liwei Rocket, but there is something else to consider. Take the examples of the British and Roman empires, while they both died in the course of time (centuries!) they also had profound influence beyond their reigns. Both established a cultural groundwork that influences societies even today. That is their greatest achievement, many of the nations that were once part of the British Empire are are today the most free and prosperous on Earth. One can get by with the English language all over the world, even places untouched by the old empire. The legacy of Rome is in many respects the very foundation of Western society.

Whichever nation reaches Mars first will have the opportunity to mold that future society in its own image, and in that they will secure a hold on the future that will last long after their fall. This is why I would greatly prefer that the US go it alone than leave it to other, less open societies. The greatest triumph of empires is their effect after they fall. If we equal the impact of the Roman and British empires we will have done well, historically speaking.

and they still have the Queen on their money!

Taxes are fine, but I'm of the opinion that they should be avoidable if one chooses such a lifestyle. If for some reason I wanted to stop going to work, shut off my electricity and live off a garden in my backyard I see no reason why it shouldn't be permitted. Certainly we can't have people murdering other citizens in their basements, but that is not a direct result of "bunkering." And still, there can be zoning restrictions and other controls that are not tax-based. No artillery pieces allowed in residential neighborhoods, for example.    Unless one can find a defensive use for them, then I suppose I'm locked into my "right to bear arms" position. You'd have to be damn good shot with that howitzer, though.

Well, for the short version you can start with the "Race and Culture" thread in Free Chat. It reinforced my belief that western civilization and culture is 'better' than the competition and should be protected. It then logically followed that it should be expanded, and I find myself becoming a cultural imperialist advocating policies which encourage other cultures to become more like ours. It doesn't necessarily entail invasions or crusades, just the steady exertion of influence.

That's debatable. We do have property taxes, which if we don't pay result in having our land taken from us. So we in essence rent our land from the government. I don't doubt it's far better than residing on the 'People's Collective #whatever' but land ownership doesn't really exist anymore.

Absolutely right. Which is why I keep saying we should get our butts in gear and go!

I'll tear it down. 

I agree wholeheartedly! 6 billion to go, give or take.
Actually I'm not very authoritarian at all, except in certain rare cases when called for. Every once in a while someone needs to have their head cracked.  ???  Unfortunate, but undeniable.

My understanding of the Libertarian position on taxation, which is essentially my own opinion on the matter, is that taxes aren't inherently evil but should not be forced on people. For example, excise taxes and sales taxes are okay, but not income or property taxes. The former two you can avoid by not buying the product or engaging in the taxed activity, the latter are forced upon you unjustly and cannot be escaped. One could even argue that income tax is part-time slavery, but I digress.

Keep things under control in your hemisphere Planetlord Barret, I'm on it up here. 

51 points, just barely a "medium core" libertarian, whatever that means. Like a medium steak I presume.
But not pink in the middle, like clark's score 

:laugh:  Actually I was thinking they'd all vote me into the Presidency. 

But anyone who would call a lefty a "liberal airhead" can't be too far off.
And of course you can hold me to that compliment, I'm not officially a politician yet   

And I've exceeded my smiley quota for the day.

Seems like everyone purposely misunderstands fascism. If you listen to the American Left we've got fascists running all over America!

I'm thinkin, since Gennaro and Shaun scored as good Americans, and so many of our American participants came out liberal airheads... Maybe some sort of exchange is in order 

But which country has the most "good Americans?"...

A novel terraforming approach 

As I thought, you have no answer. Credibility, zero. Whine on, you crazy liberal...

Alt2War, I was just reading your post in "how do you feel about going to Mars" in "Human Missions" and you made alot of sense.

And then I find this little fit.

One question, what would have us do when our nation is attacked? How would you protect our citizens? What is your alternative to war, hmm?

My initial impression is that while it brings up some good points and suggestions, overall it is naive and counter to the eventual human habitation of Mars or any other celestial body.

"Until recently the remaining torchbearers of the final frontier were the space lobby groups, which have done their best to keep the dream of JFK's 1962 speech alive. A good example is the Space Frontier Association, which is founded on a set of five propositions:

It is human destiny to open the space frontier.

This must be achieved within 50 to 100 years.

America, as a frontier nation, has a special responsibility to open this frontier.

The current US space programme is not doing so.
It must be replaced with one that will"

While they mentioned this as an example of a paradigm they go on to reject overall, I think these points are valid.

"Immediately before taking office Donald Rumsfeld chaired a high-level space commission, whose final report gives further insights into the current administration's thinking. The commission ominously predicts, 'every medium - air, land and sea - has seen conflict. Reality indicates that space will be no different. Given this virtual certainty, the US must develop the means both to deter and to defend against hostile acts in and from space.'"

Again, this isn't really arguable. While other nations may not be comfortable with the US (rather than themselves) being in the sole position to act on this, the underlying thinking is sound.

"The report states that: 'No system of missile defences can be fully effective without placing sensors and weapons in space... For US armed forces to continue to assert military pre-eminence, control of space...must be an essential element of our military strategy.' It acknowledges that this will inevitably require the use offorce within space and from space, and calls for the.creation of a new US space force as a separate service alongside the army, navy and air force. It also questions whether NASA should remain independent of these wider military and strategic priorities."

Again, hostility to this concept seems to be more rooted in being "outside" rather than having a valid argument and' alternative. While it may sound ominous that US government officials are discussing the increased militarization and weaponization of space, it is prudent. If human activity in space is to increase, we're just going to have to accept military operations as part of that activity. It's part of human civilization, we either grow the whole thing or quarantine ourselves here on Earth. We can't pick and choose only the warm and fuzzy parts for export to the stars.

"Yet any moves in this direction would flout the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which requires space activities to have 'peaceful purposes'."

The Outer Space Treaty prevents any development, any meaningful "activity." Undermining it is a good thing in itself. By all means, flout.

"Weaponisation is also opposed by almost every other nation. A UN resolution on the subject was passed in November 2000 with the support of 163 nations."

Out of weakness. They can't do it themselves so they want to stop us from doing it. How many of those 163 nations would oppose weaponizing space if it were their weapons on the line? I know there are many non-Americans on this forum, I ask you to think long and hard about this one. Do you really trust everything your governments say on these matters or is it possible that there is a bit of envy and fear at work?

"Kagan argues that the US divides the world into friends and enemies, prefers unilateralist solutions, favours policies of coercion over dip!pmacy, and resorts to force more quickly. Europe, on the other ha'hd, has a more complex picture of the world, prefers multilateral solutions, favours negotiation and diplomacy over coercion, and tends to emphasise processes over results."

Can't really argue with that either. Now ask yourself this; in the colonization of space do we want the emphasis on "processes over results?" Taming a new frontier is not an undertaking for the timid or those worried about offending anyone.

"But the only stable and successful international order Americans can imagine is one that has the United States at its centre. Nor can Americans conceive of an international order that is not defended by power, and specifically by American power.' US power is now so dominant that any threats it faces are inevitably asymmetric in nature. As a result, the US neither seeks nor expects a level playing field - on Earth or in space."

I for one can "conceive" of an order not defended by American power, but given the history of the likely successors I don't want to risk it. I don't want to hit anyone, but I like knowing we could clobber the world if we need to. As for that last line about the "level playing field," it doesn't carry much weight coming from the Brits. I don't recall the Empire being particularly concerned with a "level playing field." Does any dominant power ever try to even things out for the competition? How long would such a power be dominant? The Nations of Europe had their chance, it looks like they'll just have to wait until their turn comes up again. Which it will no doubt, in time.

"The European Union represents a commitment to a set of distinctive values: democracy, coexistence and cooperation between nations that have learned from a history of conflict."

That might be a bit premature. We could well be in a brief period of European peace rather than the start of a new era.
Afterall, all of Europe was fighting until 1945, and if you really get down to it a big reason for the following "unity" was the direct result of rebuilding and the Soviet Union sitting next door. So Europe has truly been "at peace" without compulsion for about 13 years. I'm not impressed yet.

"Applications of satellite technology that have excited the most interest over the past year are in transport: specifically the use of GPS as the basis of a nationwide road pricing scheme. Now that Ken Livingstone has shown that congestion charging can work in London, the Department for Transport is considering the introduction of a national scheme. GPS offers the most effective method of doing this.
By introducing a GPS 'black box' into every car, it would be possible to tax motorists for the precise distance travelled, and to vary charges according to time of day or location"

Hmm, we could use space to build infrastructure on new worlds and expand the domain of (Western) human civilization, or as a way to pay new asinine taxes made possible by technology... Militarization is looking pretty good right now. 

"This is another area of tension between US and European visions for space. At precisely the time that the space community should be embracing new forms of open innovation, President Bush's announcement of a massive boost in funding for human exploration, combined with his enthusiasm for weaponisation, has sent a strong signal that the US favours a closed approach."

This, among many other passages, implies that the so-called "European vision for space" minimizes human activity in space. Scientific research for its own sake is essentially pointless if we don't do anything with it. Avoiding weaponisation of space requires avoiding humans in space, in which case all we're doing is satisfying our curiosity with expensive toys.

If this is the distinction, I like the alleged dirty, gun-toting, boots on the ground American vision.

"Today, the space age no longer feels like the future. It doesn't even feel like the present. There are a number of explanations for this. First, the frontier myth has lost much of its power. Since the Apollo era it has been subject to much revision and critique, especially surrounding the negative experiences of Native Americans, African Americans and women. The space programme itself has increasing failed to represent a changing society, a point made by Gill Scott Heron in his song 'Whitey on the Moon'. For many people, frontiers have come to mean conquest, rather than progress."

Yes, bad things happened in the conquest of the American frontier, but that doesn't negate the good or invalidate the model. In the development of a new frontier, conquest and progress go hand in hand. Besides, so far every target for potential developemt is free of natives to be oppressed and exploited, or to impede progress depending upon your perspective. Conquest is not the opposite of progress.

Congress is.

"Given the likely advances in space science over the next decade, it is possible that some of these questions will move centre-stage. If astrobiologists succeed in their search for life beyond Earth, space science could become the locus for a deeper public conversation about the purpose and destination of human activity, and the need for new forms of global - or even interplanetary! - governance."

I've got some definate thoughts on interplanetary governenance, whether or not life beyond Earth turns up. I doubt anything devised under the mentality of this document would function. Adherence to the Outer Space Treaty alone causes huge problems. Perhaps a new thread is in order.

"For the first time since the end of the Cold War, there is a growing recognition that space matters. George W Bush has made it a central focus of his second-term electoral platform."

That's overstating the situation in oh so many ways.

"MORI polling for Demos has uncovered a genuine concern among the British public about the militarisation of space: 66 per cent feel that space should be a neutral place, with no military uses, and 68 per cent are concerned that the US is 'more interested in the military potential of space than in sending astronauts to Mars'."

Of course they are, what use would the US government really have for going to Mars? Unless it was for military advantage or political show, maybe to one-up the Chinese. While not particularly encouraging, militarization will get people there faster than robot probes. And once the military has a "port" on Mars for whatever reason, we have the beginning of permanent habitation. We can't trust the government to colonize Mars for its own sake, but we just might able to trick them into starting the ball rolling.

"Yet in the second half of the programme ESA is proposing to play catch-up with NASA, by joining the race to put astronauts on Mars. The strategic rationale for this is flimsy at best. ESA argues that certain scientific experiments are best conducted by humans rather than robots, but it seems doubtful that these benefits will justify the potential for this half of the programme to absorb such a huge amount of money. The other argument being made is the familiar and unsubstantiated claim that this will somehow re-engage the public in space. However, as we argue above, there are many more innovative and genuinely participative methods of achieving this objective. Furthermore, at a practical level, ESA will struggle to compete with NASA's deeper pockets and greater experience in human exploration.
So our conclusions are a hearty yes to phase one of Aurora, but a polite no to phase two."

A policy which deliberately rejects manned Mars missions. More pro-robot bigotry. Next...

"This report argues that the time is ripe for Britain to develop a new vision of public space. This vision has five core dimensions:

It is distinctively European,grounded in a commitment to international development and environmental protection.

I see. The American vision is ignorant of the past, unilateral and non-inclusive but a "distinctively European" approach is wonderfully progressive.  ???

It sees space as a crucial part of the smart state, contributing to economic innovation and public service renewal.

And how does it contribute to these things? Never really explained. And "Smart State," that conjures up some imagery they might want to suppress.

It recognises the intrinsic value of space science and earth observation in understanding the origins of the Universe and our place within it.

And that's great, but to what end? Just to know for our own satisfaction?

It reconnects space with our social and cultural imagination.

Well, as an American, it seems hostile to "our" social and cultural imagination, which is apparently not a vision wortt pursuing. As Mars is apparently not a destination worth visiting, in person at least.

It democratises space by developing new forms of public participation that can shape the future direction of space science and technology."

So, what? It let's individuals build and launch their own spacecraft? Let's anyone off the street take part in the design of the robot probes that are apparently so well-suited to the task? or could it be that "democratises" is code for "make them think they're participating when they really have no say?"

Earthfirst. It is rants such as that which have made this issue a no-go point in most political discourse. Heaping scorn on Mexicans does no one any good.

Besides, Spanish/Mexican culture is Western. The same concepts are present in its roots, though I suppose historically the execution hasn't been stellar. We have far bigger problems than a perceived attempt by Latinos to "take back their land." While illegal immigration from Mexico is harmful in many respects, it is just as much the fault of misguided "anglo" policies as anything else.

But as for the language issue, this is significant. Common language and culture are the twin pillars of a coherent nation. If either is lost, so will the state follow.

Somehow I think the "Age of Kings" looks rosier in retrospect.

The thing about the Enlightenment that is rarely mentioned is how dependent it was the social order of the time. You have all these people running around talking about liberty and rule of the people while they themselves are the subjects of Kings, with varying levels of buffer. it's only after the feudal lords have been finally shaken off and we have to put all those noble ideals into practice that we start to long for the simplicity of a ruler in whom we could place absolute authority, being that he rules by divine right after all.   ??? 
I suspect human greed and treachery is one of the few constants in the universe. Time and romanticism merely smooth the edges.

Not that I have anything against the Enlightenment, its fruits are one of the things I'm gravely concerned about losing.

I can explain this one, it comes from being broke and frustrated. Miserable, but somehow liberating... Ah well, back to polishing the armor...