New Mars Forums

This is essentially what we have, and it works. It's not perfect but nothing ever is.

Free speech is one thing, but a right to spread it around is quite another. Does the government give you internet access? My comment on the Post Office was simply refering to the fact that it pays for itself by the fees it charges. Yes, it's government run but it is not free nor does it rely on direct taxation. A service paid for by those that use it. And yet some people see the need to pay more for FedEx.

All I said was that it wasn't free. Some people think it is, but anything paid for with tax dollars is not free.

I would argue that you can't have an egalitarian society based on meritocracy at all    The latter casts serious questions about the former.

I am of the opinion that the government should defend the nation, make just laws and enforce them, see to the maintenance of sanitation and transportation infrastructure (not necessarily directly, private contractors probably work better) and otherwise leave the citizenry alone. Create the conditions for free people to succeed, the rest is up to them. If a private charity wants to help the unfortunate, great, I fully support that and might even give some money when I can afford to; but by forcing me to give I've actually been deprived of the opportunity to do good and robbed in the process.

I simply meant a sales tax. In single digits.

I know, you just keep getting more messed up over there on the Left Coast. Oh, sorry to hear that your state's on fire, the hits just keep comin' don't they? ??? Arnold'll fix it

The difference being that I'm not forced to have homeowner's insurance. I can take the risk.

Alright, moving on.

I'm gonna put this on the reject pile. I've known a lot of highly educated people that I wouldn't want running a hotdog stand let alone a nation, and on the hand we have Ronald Reagan, film star who turned out to be pretty good President. And here come the shouts of vehement disagreement

To quote the great philospher Dr. Evil,  "How 'bout no!" 

Surly, armed citizens.

Well, if a leader can't make unpopular decisions he shouldn't have the job. But the exile thing was mainly a whim that would effectively keep the ex-dictator from constantly blathering on about what the current dictator is doing wrong. Thank you Bill Clinton for making this necessary. Can make that exile retroactive?

Good one. Yet I always found it odd that the opportunity to reflect and choose came only after much accident and force. Force still rules, it's what you do with it that makes all the difference.

Ahh! Now we've got two inefficient committees to deal with! I hope that Congress isn't bi-cameral, we'll never get anything done!

Congress is the opposite of Progress

As for the idea of somehow randomly choosing those who will govern, this is the worst idea in the history of politics. Worse than Communism even. Everyone who governs should want to be there, the question is do they want the power to do something specific or do they just want the power? Means or end?

There are people who can have dictatorial power and not abuse it, but they are rare. If a group of people all have the same basic interests a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government they can have, the problem is that when a person is in power for a relatively short amount of time their interests no longer match those of the populace. look at Congress, anyone who thinks Trent lott, Ted Kennedy or Jim Jeffords are concerned about the same things as they are isn't quite in touch with real life.

Don't go looking for something unless you're reasonably sure you can kill it if you have to.

That's my thought. Now where did I put that planet-smasher...

But if there is a colony it will produce its own unqualified labor.This will happen long before there is a "Martian civilization" of any consequence. Which brings us to another oft overlooked fact: many of the "qualifications" we attach so much importance to are merely institutional hoops one must navigate in order to be considered for employment. The inevitable shortage of labor will result in a severe relaxing of the formalities. Besides, somebody is still going to have to mop the floors, clean the toilets and all those other little things we so easily forget about when pondering great endeavors.

I am of the opinion that the "base evolving into colony" assumption is without merit. A base isn't going to evolve into anything but a larger base, a colony will require a conscious decision to permanently settle Mars with people, not researchers but average people with families and non Mars-research centered occupations. A base is just that and nothing more.

At last I can see where the hell Josh is coming from! And frighteningly I can't really take issue with that. Now if only we could get a reasonable ETA on the required level of technology.

Yes, Shaun, that was my major problem with it. It really came down to "I'm not sure I could do it and I wouldn't trust anyone else to." Shortly thereafter I developed my "test" when I think I have a good idea in the political or legal field. I assume that I'm existing in a disembodied state and about to be born into the society in question. Race, religion, class, economic status etc. will all be determined randomly. If I'm not willing to take the risk, then the idea is rejected.

Public health infrastructure does not require the government for its existence. The post should pay for itself, and education isn't free. As for the rest, I see the reasons for having them but I have serious concerns about government taking the responsibility for them. Besides, I never ruled out a modest tax on consumption.

I can't recall who it was who said that democracy only lasts until the people discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, but the point stands. These "safety nets" always grow like a cancer. The only way I see it working properly is if it's controlled entirely by a government not directly answerable to the people, but then we have all sorts of other problems.

I'm in complete agreement, but if we then tax the populace in order to take care of these irresponsible people they're still stealing, just less directly. If you break into my house and steal some money it's theft. If you and ten friends break in and steal money it's theft. If a politician you elect takes it from me on payroll and gives it to you and your ten friends it's a "safety net" What the hell is that? Not that I think you'd break in to my place   Not that there's much in there worth stealing.

Well, that's just loony behavior rather than anything centered around survival, quite the opposite. No bribe is going to stop all of that stuff.

I don't think the social safety net has much to do with it at all. The rate of crime and generally uncivil behavior in this country is far higher today than it was when we had practically no welfare apparatus of any kind. The attitudes and values of the people are far more important. When these social welfare programs were first introduced in the Depression a vast number of truly desperate people refused to take the handout. That's where the WPA came in, not because we really needed those tasks done but that people wouldn't just take government money for doing nothing. Now in just half a century we've reached a point where people complain if they're expected to work. That's what we need to fix.

Well said, Byron.

Quite enlightening. Apparently it wasn?t such a bad idea after all. 

Fair enough. The short version.

A philosophical framework is just that, a structure we erect, on which we order our beliefs. The best of them can bend with a quake, but even then sometimes you need to tear the whole thing down and start over. I?m about as open-minded as they come, but without convincing evidence I?ll dismiss a claim quickly.  but enough stalling!

To confirm suspicions, yes, I was a full-fledged fascist. Not at first, but in response to shortcomings of more moderate political systems.

Those who are thinking ?Nazi,? no, not the same thing. Do your research. It could take awhile. Or, the simple, barely adequate answer: Nazis are inherently racist, fascists aren?t. Nazis are extremely dogmatic, fascists aren?t. If you put fascism, Soviet communism, and Nazism together in a box, aside from a fight, you get an idea how much Nazism and Soviet communism had in common and fascism looks, dare I say, moderate. Not an apology for it, BTW. But on to the why.

I am of the opinion that, at least in the Western democracies, an person develops the core of their beliefs in and shortly after high school, even if only in a negative sense. It's usually something attractive but unworkable, forms of socialism being the most common. I knew a number of pinkos in high school and college, but they never really made much sense to me. I liked many aspects of the western democratic principles. Free speech, which I abused at times, was high on the list. I considered the Bill of Rights to be the most important document in the history of the US, even more so than the Constitution itself. But I could not accept democracy.

I considered socialism to be a large-scale version of chemistry lab. Five people in a group, two do all the work, three skate by on the labor of the other two. But that damned not only socialism, but democracy as well. I figured if these three (the majority) are too ignorant, lazy or just plain stupid to do the work then it's best to keep them out of the loop entirely. Let us do it right, sit back, shut up, and enjoy the benefits.

Ah, fascism. The national community working together for the benefit of all, the readiness to fight when required, the cool black shirts! Of course the down side was ongoing abuse from people who thought fascism and Nazism were the same thing. They wouldn't know a Nazi if one came up and nationalized strategic industry, re-armed, and annexed the Sudetenland. But that ignorant hostility taught me that to lose on your principles is better than to betray them for personal comfort. Fortunately not many people got really violent over political doctrines, (too concerned with meaningless BS) but heated arguments were common, and entertaining. To this day I can?t help but laugh when someone admonishes my roots in an ideology from the 1930?s as archaic and retrograde, then with a straight face spouts ideas from the 18th century, calling them progressive. Not that the Enlightenment was bad, but it produced its share of drivel.

For me, fascism had positive aspects beyond the political. For one, it has helped make me extremely hard on people when they?re being hypocritical, mercilessly tearing them down if they push too far. Yes, I?m a dick at times, but never undeserved. I think it?s a good thing.

It also forced me to be sure I can?t be subjected to the same abuse. My conduct is more honest and honorable than I otherwise might be inclined to be. Loyalty is of profound importance (unless that hypocrite thing comes up) and an oath actually means something. Needless to say, my wife likes this aspect of it. In a very real sense fascism has made me a better person, though I?d probably have had more fun if I?d been a raging socialist. There?s a lot of commie women out there. 

But fascism threatened to negate the very rights I thought were vital to protect. I needed to fuse the best aspects of fascism and ?democracy.? It?s a work in progress.

I recently used the term "Post-Fascist Libertarian" to describe my current state and that seems to fit as well as anything. The basic idea is that government leaves the people alone to live as they will, no ?nanny-state? regulations, very little welfare apparatus (of which historical fascism had more than you?d think) and very low taxes. Freedom with responsibility. Life, Liberty, Property. This negates property taxes and income taxes, in case anyone was wondering. The other side is that the government is free to govern, using whatever means are required as long as they do not interfere with the rights of the people. I?ve given some thought to a political structure based on this approach, which I?ve taken to calling ?Ad-Hocracy? for lack of a better term.

The great dilemma, as with all political systems, is how do you make sure that the right people are running things? I would argue that those who want the power probably shouldn?t have it, but beyond that I don?t really know. I do know that democratic systems grow larger and more corrupt until they can no longer be fixed through the democratic process.

Don?t worry Mr. Ashcroft, I?m not planning anything. Please take me off the list.

In short, both fascism and liberalism are on my reject pile, but both made valuable contributions. Perhaps one day I?ll devise that perfect system, but I doubt it. I mean, if I were that good they?d make me dictator for five years, followed by voluntary exile on Mars.

Anarchists...

Hmm, I see what you mean. I meant that those on the forum are unusual in their ability to carry on intelligent conversations with people of greatly opposed opinions, rather than the more common "no, you're wrong and you're stupid" response. It was intended to be a compliment. Ah well, this is what lack of sleep does. At this rate I'll probably start typing in Klingon in an hour two.

Good point. If anyone else takes the Yahoo route I'm in, but if the thread dies before it starts so be it. I'm actually in a quandry myself over this, generally believing that an unwillingness to explain and defend one's principles diminishes their argument on the one hand, and just not really wanting the abuse on the other.

Wouldn't be the first bad idea.

That was shot in Nevada, haven't you heard

I'm not sure if it's the unfounded prideful boasting, the absurd claims or just the bad English but its worth some laughs.

Like this nugget.

"us-americans scientists will eventually try to copy or steal the knowledge from China through bribing etc."

...who bought it from the Russians, who copied half the systems from us!

Yeah, go on, try for the moon. You'll find an old American flag and some trash there waiting for you. Hopefully they'll find American cities when they get to Mars, if we get our act together.

That's "fascist imperialist war-monger" Get it right 

Well, he was right. And we were already over there, and they were exhausted. Imagine the look on Stalin's face! Ha!

I once saw the lid of a paint can shot off, flip in the air, and land back on the can perfectly in place. It's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.

But what would motivate people to give up a comfortable lifestyle in a developed Western nation to go live in box in a frozen wasteland with an unbreathable atmosphere? I would go to get away from government that sticks its hands into everything. Then to find out that the pristine wasteland has a government that spans the entire planet? Off to Europa I guess. A planetary government, particularly if designed by "experts" will quickly turn into a menace.

"I've got a better way to extract oxygen."
"You can't."
"Why not?"
"You need permits 42123-A, 463-C, and 847-T to use nuclear equipment in mining operation."
"But I'm not mining, I'm scooping frozen CO2 from the ground, and I'm only using the Hab's reactor to charge my machine before leaving."
"Oh, you're off-site. Do you have a registered land claim verification?"

You see were this is going. I like the idea of unregulated territory on what is after all supposed to be a frontier. Maybe I want to develop a cure for cancer, or maybe I'm just breeding a race of super-monkeys to take over all of Utopia Planitia, either way, leave me alone. Nobody lives there, it's a valid claim if I get that damn form filled out.

Let's look at the UN, for which there is but one for the entire planet. It is the very model of inefficiency. I see no reason that Mars would develop a more productive, less corrupt entity. In the name of efficiency let's get rid of as many bureaucrats as possible, by localizing them and minimizing their powers.

And those damn elections too 

Bill, Clark; all good points. Now why do these national  functions on earth require a Martian planetary government? Could not Mars be divided into sovereign states who work out their own arrangements, as is the case on Earth?

Assuming of course that the Martians have any choice in the matter. Nobody is going to send colonists to set up an independent state unless they're a terrible irritation to keep around.

Hey, maybe I've got a shot