You are not logged in.
I don't understand why you have a problem with my argument- it is ineffect, the very same system we have in America (some states). . .
There is an important difference between what we have in America and what you advocate for Mars. Say, for the sake of argument, that I'm a criminal/terrorist/obnoxious dissident and you are the legitimate authority. I commit a murder/bomb a building/object to government policy. You, as the head of government have the authority to have me put to death, and the majority of the public wants to see it happen.
In America, you have to convince a judge that I should be captured, then you have to send out police, they have to actually FIND and CAPTURE me, then a trial begins, and finally I am put to death.
What you advocate for Mars skips from the first step to the last, it's too easy. If it's so simple, then in time it will apply not only to those first two offenses (murder, terrorism) but to the third (dissension) as well.
The State is allowed to use force to make individuals comply with the will of the government, i.e. the people (US case). The government also has the right to uswe deadly force when neccessary to force compliance.
A government requires the authority to use force to enforce the law, however the ability to simply shut off life support is not the same as any current method of doing so. In order to carry out a state sanctioned execution the offender must be apprehended, tried, convicted and finally put to death. The process takes time and a great deal of effort, thus ensuring that it is not begun without justifiable cause. When the entire process becomes as easy as flipping a switch it WILL BE abused. The action to enforce the law must be balanced by the difficulty in carrying out that enforcement.
Terminating life support simply because it is easier than other policing actions sets a very dangerous precedent. I, for one, would not want to trust my fate to an executive authority or a judicial panel, no matter how well intentioned.
Far from a just society where the rights of all are protected, we'd end with one where anyone who deviates from the accepted norm faces the threat of death.
Nazism without the pageantry, I'll wait for the next colony.
It seems reasonable to assume that violent crime isn't going to be a problem on Mars for a long time after colonization begins just by the nature of the situation. Probably two or three generations will pass before it becomes a major issue. The question is whether the colony will be prepared when it does come up. Eventually there are going to be armed criminals, there's no way around it; even if no guns are brought to the planet it's easy enough to make one (and I don't necessarily mean just firearms, a compressed gas can propel a projectile out of a tube just as well as an explosive). If the colony deludes itself into a belief that no weapons will mean no criminal activity they're going to have serious problems; if they allow personal weapons from the start then the criminals will have a harder time preying on the rest of the colony. The whole point of using a weapon is to gain an advantage, if everyone has (or could have) a weapon crime becomes a riskier business.
As for some jackass shooting a hole in the dome, I'd hope that the structures would be able to withstand a handgun bullet. I'd be deeply concerned about living inside it otherwise.
in countries with gun control there is significantly less violent crime and gun-related crime, despite the spiel about 'only criminals will have guns'. But you can read statistics in different ways.
I've done a fair amount of research on the subject of gun control over the years and the statistics, when not manipulated to alter their meaning, almost always show that gun control INCREASES crime. Granted, the number of high profile shooting massacres drops but such incidents are a tiny percentage of homicides. The number of run of the mill murders, rapes and burglaries increases significantly when gun control is introduced. For example, the UK's experiment with gun control has not been the shining success that the media likes to potray it as. A fair reading of the raw statistics shows that it doesn't work in Europe, it doesn't work in American cities, it isn't working in Australia and there is no reason to believe that it will work on Mars.
The overwhelming majority of police officers I've discussed the issue with agree. The guns aren't the problem, the criminals are. Armed Martians will make for a free Mars.
Never thought I'd write that sentence . . .
Having skimmed through this entire thread while engaging in another conversation I won't presume to argue with anyone's assertions as I may have missed something. However, one thing stands out: the issue of independance keeps coming up and it seems that there is some confusion of indpendence and sovereignty. The United States is sovereign but not truly independent, we rely on foreign nations for all kinds of things. We may not have to for survival, but we still do for a number of reasons. Independence and sovereignty are linked but one does not necessarily imply the other.
It seems to me that as a Martian Bill of Rights this list is a bit too concise. By being as specific as some of the articles are they allow for a great deal of infringement of their spirit through careful interpretation of their wording. Perhaps following (roughly) the model of the US Bill of Rights might be more effective, setting up a system with a brief and in some ways vague list of prohibitions directed at the government that essentially let the colonial government do whatever is needed for the good of the state as long as it doesn't interfere with those rights. Not perfect, but there is no "right" answer.
Of course nothing written now is going to mean much to Martian colonists, they'll do whatever the hell they want and at times I guarantee it won't be pretty. Quite a dillema.
It seems reasonable to assume that the first government on Mars is going to be whatever the sponsors of the mission want, followed shortly by whatever the colonists decide they want if they can work up the nerve to tell the powers that be back on Earth to perch and twirl.
Might this not be a golden opportunity for a substantial fraction of humanity to finally live the life they really want?
I'm not too optimistic about the prospects of such a diverse grouping surviving long term, but the relative isolation of each individual colony could be a major factor helping in the development of the planet. The colony is established by individuals seeking to follow their particular ideals whether they be communists, islamic fundamentalists, anarchists, neo-fascists or anything else. While they each attempt to build their own ideal societies they will also build the infrastructure required for larger populations. Things will be very interesting for a while, but within two or three generations I'd expect that the individual colonies will begin to blend together for reasons of trade, increasing pragmatism on all sides, immigration and the simple need to keep the gene pool stirred.
There is always the possibility of a crewman who has become a danger to the group succumbing to an unfortunate "accident" of some sort. There are many things that can happen to a person on Mars, particularly if the others are inclined to overlook certain details. Justice on colonial Mars may not be of the familiar civilized form, instead opting for an earlier and harder variety.
What politcal reasons would cause someone to leave Earth permanetly? What politcal "freedom" is available on Mars that is not available on Earth? If you have the technology to live on Mars, you consquently have the neccessary technology to live ANYWHERE on Earth- why travel umpteen million miles to live in a desolate place when you can do that for a fraction of the cost and time in Antartica or on the ocean floor?
Earth, at least in most of the Western world allows the political freedom to talk, not to do. If a group wanted to settle an area and govern themselves by their own principles there are few options. Antarctica has the problem of international treaties prohibiting its development, although that may not be as big an obstacle as it seems depending on the resources and guile of the people attempting it. Remember that the United States was built on a long series of broken treaties. The ocean floor has similar problems as well as being in some ways a more difficult enviroment to live in than Mars. The major problem however is that it's on Earth. To quote Dr. Zubrin from 'The Case For Mars, "the cops are too close". Mars offers an opportunity for political visionaries and malcontents of all types to go off and live by their own creeds while at the same time developing Mars for further colonization down the line, everybody wins. Every corner of Earth is just too accesible by outside powers who think they know best to allow for political self determination.
I mean, we could say consumerism leads to massive corruption, oppression, poverty, and so on...
No argument here. Either way we get screwed, but if given the choice I'd pick a large number of corporations competing for the chance rather than centralizing that power as tends to happen with communist governments. Betting on the goodwill, civil responsibility and honesty of one's fellow man is usually a losing wager.
I think one of the reasons people will colonize Mars is because of political reasons. But, I don't think that can be the only reason.
Politics will certainly be only one of many reasons driving colonists to Mars. I think it's reasonable to assume that as colonies grow and build infrastructure politics will become more important than is likely at the start. As the means to live off the land increase, (though in a radically different way from the somewhat overused colonial America analogy) it will become more practical for groups to establish colonies for primarily political reasons. I am in complete agreement that it probably won't cut it as the sole factor, but it is certain to figure in to a degree.
The point I was trying to make was simply that most of the people who will want to pioneer Mars will be motivated by a desire to make a new world and a better life for themselves, they'll want to make their own way and govern themselves to a degree unthinkable on over-crowded interconnected Earth. Any kind of welfare system is something that should gradually form as a nation develops, trying to hardwire it into a Martian government before it can even stand on its own will very likely destroy its chances of survival. Now is not the time to work out the details of a Martian welfare state, let the Martian population deal with it when they are ready to decide for themselves how much of a burden they want to place on the shoulders of society and how much is the sole responsibility of individual citizens.
Remember, liberals unwilling to tolerate ideas other than their own are not liberal at all. Let's try to keep the hostility in check and try to have a rational discussion like civilized people.
What would YOU tell all the women and their babies who recieve prenatal care through medicade?
Not to be too blunt, I'd tell them that if their means are limited to the point to where they require government assistance to reproduce then perhaps they should take steps to avoid doing so. While it may be cold to consider leaving people to deal with their own financial misery (which is not always their fault) it is also wrong to expect those who earn wages to bear the yoke of the state welfare apparatus. It is bad enough having been introduced late in America's development, having such a system at the inception of a Martian colony would cripple it and remove a major motivation that people would have for settling there.
Communism is likely on Mars in two circumstances. First, if the people on Mars financed themselves; if a government or corporation foots the bill they will have a strong say in what happens and expect a return.
Second, communism only works in small groups. The population of a Mars base may well develop a communist system but when it develops into a true colony it just won't work. Communism with a modern industrialised population invariably leads to massive bereaucracy, corruption, and likely collapse. Martian communism is likely to be an interesting footnote in the history of Mars colonization, nothing more.