New Mars Forums

Even a state is only an agreement between people, so ALL applications are within that context. And there are probably NO states where ALL the people agree on ALL laws, not to mention the many circumstances where one "right" or "law" conflicts with another in a particular circumstance. Rights   do NOT require unanimity in order to exist, as your own example of state-defined rights makes clear.

BTW, I have repeatedly admitted the practical VALUE of embodying rights in governmental organizations; I only point out that it is not NECESSARY in order to define rights.

Sorry to disrupt your dream world, but ideals exist in many highly practical senses. In fact, most of modern physics is expressed in the form of ideals which NEVER exist in reality, e.g. Newton's laws of motion [a body in motion will remain in uniform rectilinear motion unless acted upon by some outside force], the gas laws, etc. In fact, those very useful principles could never have even been formulated except in their ideal forms. In fact, as the English philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once commented, "The negative judgement [stripping away the real to reveal the ideal form that lies beneath] is the peak of mentality." This same process, so useful in the natural sciences, can also be applied to the social/behavioral sciences.

Theory of knowledge is also what we call it, alternatively giving it the name epistemology. How do you reconcile Kant and existentialism?

As for the enlightenment doctrine having it wrong, perhaps and perhaps not. However, it was a major philosophical foundation for one of the most successful societies the world has ever known. Many of the most forward-looking leaders of the 18th century in Europe felt it had a lot of merit, thus the doctrine was both "real" and influential. And much of it was embodied into law. While such embodiment is not necessary for rights to exist, they are, as you and Cobra have indicated, much more effective if such codification has occurred.

I don't really relate to the basic point of your gazelle example, though I do agree that one is a priceless creature. Evolution is much more sophisticated than you portray.

Have you ever seen the films showing how often they get away? If they didn't frequently get away, then there wouldn't be any for us to observe!

I'm not going to go into a discussion of the existence of God at this point, but I do point out that if there is one he/she would likely be the primary giver of "rights", just as enlightenment figures suggested. The fact that God is a hypothesis that you do not happen to believe has nothing to do with whether or not conceptions of rights based on the presumed existence of a God do exist and are influential.

Yes, I certainly think that human emotions and the capacity for empathy are heavily involved in the development of concepts of rights, justice, and other abstract goods. In fact, all these things reflect the objective nature of man. Because man is a "natural" creature, it is natural (in man's nature) for him to develop systems of justice, rights, etc. which are constrained in their efficacy according to whether or not such systems are consistent with man's deep and complex nature. Those systems that are most consistent with man's nature (whether divine or not) will be most influential and long-lasting. Thus a concept of "natural rights" can be fully objective and does not require any reference to a third-party God to give it meaning.

Well, this is an exceptionally interesting post. However, let me express some skepticism on a couple of points.

Let's say that some deeply hidden terrorist group manages to get, or take over shortly after formation, one of the settlements. Since you have already specified that the settlements should be widely spread to reduce the chances of armed conflict, how would anyone know when a nuclear missile is being launched? Any random rocket might simply a return ship carrying "end-of-tour" military or science/industry specialists together with the results of their work or conceivably even some product light and valuable enough to be worth shipping back. And, if the settlements are widely spread one might even get off without anyone knowing about it. Are our Earth scanners so good that any incoming rocket will be picked up for sure? And even if it was picked up and someone said this was a return rocket, how would anybody suspect a danger until far too late to do anything about it? No the safeguards have to be right there on Mars, on a settlement by settlement basis.

Many screening techniques are fairly effective on a group (statistical) basis. However, I don't think that we have any which will identify all the potentially suicidal ones, especially ones which may be suicidal for ideological reasons.

What, they are all going to use neutron bombs in order for the cities to remain intact? Doesn't seem typical of earth wars to me. So much depends on the reasons for the war. If it's just a thieving thing, like so many of the mideast wars from time immemorial, you may be right.

On the other hand, when the Muslims captured a Crusader city or fort, they often destroyed it rather than occupying it in order to keep strong points from being retaken. They didn't need walled cities to control their own people and without walled cities the Crusader states were simply too vulnerable.

However, the use of Mars to get rid of people (e.g. prisoners) that Earth doesn't want is interesting, though unlikely. The expense of sending them vs keeping them would seem to be too great, at least at first.

Now if, like the Pilgrims, a religious or social group finances itself, that's another matter.

An interesting distinction. My feeling would be that it is impossible to have a strong economy without technological progress, but, upon reflection, it might be possible for an economy with essentially no competition to remain undisturbed for a long period. If there is any significant competition then that competition would almost certainly be based on technological improvements in the products. What civilizations do you have in mind as examples of strong economies without significant technological improvements?

Well, I agree that we need to keep honing our skills in that regard, not because it is necessary for technological development in general but because there are too many identifiably nasty folks out there who would take instant advantage of whatever military weaknesses they perceive.

Economic/social  superiority should be our strong right hand, but we should keep a knockout punch in our left.

I quite agree. But the thread issue has to do with with the dangers of nuclear proliferation and the fact that it won't be hard to do merely accentuates the importance of the basic issue.

Yes, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding. However, I stand by my point.

I also agree about its long-range importance. The very lack of productivity in this research, despite the billions poured into it, is what makes you cynical about it and me to call it "welfare for scientists". It is a big government research establishment with all the primary interests in preserving itself and secondary interests in getting the job done that such establishments typically (but not always) have. If the scientists in it were not on a gravy train and had real pressure to get the job done we would have a good demonstration of concept in a few years, not decades. I propose giving them 3 years more and then shutting the project down if there is no major success.

Let it be financed by private energy companies or governments with an immediate interest in getting the job done. Personally I think this would be an ideal project for a  major Israeli-Arab coalition. After the oil goes, a lot of the Arab nations will be in a world of hurt.

You are right, it would be great as a "skunk works" which is why it is in everyone's interest to see that it NOT become one.

I don't care if it is the UN or some other organization, some things influence the interests of more than one nation and so some mechanism for setting rules that multiple nations (treaty signatories at a minimum) will go by is necessary. As far as the UN is concerned, it has done many good things (ask all those who have benefitted from the World Health Organization, for example) and serves as an invaluable forum for the international discussion of these ideas. And, despite the highly inflated concerns of some provincialists, in its current structure poses NO risks to the autonomies of individual peaceful nations, especially the permanent members of the Security Council. I personally think that the UN might be an excellent mediator in issues relating to Mars but the future might dictate that other organizations would be better.

Simply put, the settlement of Mars is either a potential benefit for all mankind or it is not. If it is, the sooner a truly international conversation is begun at a governmental level, the better.

Nations give up "sovereignty" by signing and abiding by treaties. It is often in their best interest to do so for all sorts of very practical reasons, e.g international boundaries, "law of the sea", use of the electromagnetic spectrum, etc.

I would be very interested in seeing how you do this. In the US, a Supreme Court to guard the constitution (despite the fact that they have sworn to do so) is a contradiction in terms since the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. I would  be very interested in a method of assuring a Supreme Court would really see the Constitution as primary, rather than their own decision. The U.S. Constitution could be interpreted as primary by pointing out that all rights not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the People. However, I understand that recently the Supreme Court has decided unanimously against the people being able to override them. I guess the only way to get rid of them would be for Congress to impeach them. Now that would really be an interesting trial, impeaching Supreme Court justices for failing to defend the Constitution. But the current justices, especially those that are seen as being very conservative! (e.g. Rehnquist and Scalia), are among those who are most for the doctine that "the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is". Which proves how fundamentally false their "conservatism" is.

Very interesting. At first I asked myself how it is possible for all Bahai's to know everyone else, then I realized that they don't have to as each body is elected by the next lower body. If I understand it, the Bahai way would remove universal suffrage for the higher offices, but would have the advantage that almost everyone personally knows the candidates they vote for.

Yes, most folks are aware that the crisis is coming. What bothers me is that politicians are avoiding making long term plans NOW. Alan Greenspan has made it quite clear that the later we begin the deal with this issue, the harder it will be.

The Bush administration is in fantasy land as Gigolo George continues to make every oriface of his administration available for the satisfaction of any corporate demand (or even minor request) and the Kerry plans have retreated to a repetition of the failed economic policies of the past.

There is a book called The Two-Income Trap by a Harvard lawyer (I forget her name). She analyzes the shift from the husband as breadwinner economy to the two-income economy and comes to the conclusion that the real family income of the "husband as breadwinner" economy was greater that the combined incomes in the modern situation and without disruptive social problems caused by the "latchkey" child syndrome.

She further analyzes the economy in terms of the effects of frequent layoffs and lengthy times between layoff and re-employment, the huge increases in personal bankruptcies caused by these shifts and comes to the conclusion that the average worker is much worse off now than in the 50s and suggests that the trend is going to continue.

You forgot Singapore, which, though it was a former Anglo-Saxon colony has an ethnic Chinese majority and a racially fairly balanced government.