New Mars Forums

But thios reasoning can be applied to any Mars argument. Besides, even with a "self-sustaining" base on Luna the value of Luna is not affected- it's calue is inherent in it's location and the materials that are available on Luna itself. Luna resources can be exploited for other projects- Mars dosen't really have this option due to the gravity well.

I disagree. The value of the middle east is derived becuase they have A COMMODITY that is not abundant elsewhere on Earth- apply the same scenerio to Luna with He3- even with self-sustaining bases on Luna, the value of the resources for general exploitation and near by markets that WANT the resources ensure that Luna is 'valuable'- Mars is too far away and the cost is economicaly prohibitive to try and get the resources that it does have to markets that want it.

Everything! Location Location Location! As you pointed out, it has a constantly cheap launch window. It can provide energy to a very hungry market (earth and near space), it can provide raw materials for space construction, fuel, etc.- all of this makes Luna valunable EVEN if it had a self-sustaining population- #### self sustaining adds to the stability of the whole endeavour because it reduces risk, which would speed capital investment.

But is it neccessarily "effecient" to have Mars producing it's own toilet paper? Is it really an effecient use of space, power, and resources to devote to the production, maintence, and development of all the neccessary infrastructure to make the ONE finished product neccessary for "self-sustenance"? Water is a valuable commodity, is it effecient to use this water (and energy) to grow a tree for the sole purpose of turning it into toilet paper? You have to think about this for ANY finished product that is neccessary for self-sustainence. Do you have any idea about what is neccessary for micro-chip fabrication? You have to build the machines that allow you to build the topols that allow you to build the factory to build the chips- the more complex the neccessary product, the more layers of infrastructure that becomes neccessary- then you need to start considering raw materials, available labor, capital for expenditures (unless you have a new economy that will magically buy all this stuff), then you have to factor in all of the "things" that MUSt be produced first on Earth and then transported to Mars so you can begin to build the infrastructure.

yes, Mars is less "valuable" to Earth in relation to Luna, however, the same politcical resons apply to Mars just as they do to Luna- Nations are wary to allow precedents to be set that might haunt them later- especially in terms of "open land". Irregardless of all these points, if a government has the capability, and the will to put people on another planet, I doubt they would just roll over and play dead when people decide to exert control contrary to the Nations interest.

Why not? We have sea-faring cultures which stay rooted to their home. In fact, we HAVE a space faring culture- this group is proof.

You're mixing bad analogies. You can do all of these things becuase they are not contrary to the entity that provides these services to you. Can you fly to Cuba for vacation from a US destination? No. Why? Becuase it is contrary to the interest of the US- same with a Mars analogy when you declare that you want to go to Mars to escape the "power that be"- the powers that be are the only ones who can put you there, and it goes against their interest to put you outside of their reach.

Okay, now look at it this way- you want to go "somewhere", but need a transport to get there, you will follow the rules set by the transportation provider, but they know as soon as they take you there you will kill/rob/whatever to them- now, why would they transport you?

It's an extension of the ecosystem- or if you prefer physics- Law of thermodynamics- energy cannot be destroyed or created, it can only be changed. Taking a fish out of the ocean removes it from the immediate eco-system, however, it is still a part of the ENTIRE eco-system. Earth has, and always lose resources- all matter is eventually turned into energy, and lost as waste heat.

No, it is NOT! It is "neccessary" to make CURRENT economic models work. ISS is proof that self sustaining is NOT neccessary- it's nice, it makes things safer, but it dosen't make or break us.

There is more to this though- it IS cheaper to ship the fuel because all of the neccessary infrastructure to process the resource is nearby- the cost for extraction is less in the middle eastt than other areas- so us creating a gallon here can still cost more than a gallon there. And most of the price of gasoline is the result of taxes, not the true cost of the resource.

But the reality of the environment makes this statement untrue. EVERYONE is in an electronicaly controlled habitat- the fact that Mars is SO dependant on Earth means that Earth holds all the cards- if you rebel, you die becuase earth can cut off supplies- and by the time you build a self sustaining base (50 - 100 years), there should be a more "reliable" transportation system- which further reinforces the position of Earth.

Furthermore, all Earth has to do is control orbital space- how do you fight back against an enemy you can't reach?

I appreciate your point of view John. That being said...

I understand your analogy, however I feel the analogy does not apply. Irregardless of the amount of time neccessary to get to the destination, the requirements for surviving in free space or on Luna, are much greater than living on Mars. And that in of itself is the point. If you can make an environment on Luna or in free space that is habitable, it will be more robust than anything developed on mars- Now, once we have the habitat, we merely take that same technology and strap rockets on it.

Before we crossed that wide ocean, we knew how to live off the land- I am suggesting that luna or free space make a better teacher than Mars.

There will always be a dependency between space endeavours and earth for the forseeable long term future- it's reality, so arguing the point to decide who is MORE dependant is a waste of time- however, if you feel that this is a critical issue, we can debate the points, but i think you might agree that would prove ultimetly unproductive.

Your statement implies that this situation does not apply itself to mars, why not?

Mars does have a constant launch window, it just costs LESS once every two years. Now, let us imagine colonization efforts underway on Mars- this suggests cheaper launch costs- it also suggests a practical means for transporting people and/or goods between the two planets- How long do you honestly believe that Mars would be restricted by it's natural "Launch window"?

"Hard" is such a subjective term, I wonder if you might be able to qualify the idea with examples of how it is "hard".  Also, every human conflict is the result of distribution and control of limited resources- culture, race, religion, governemnt types- these are all means to unite independant people by seperating them from "others".

But government is the product of Culture, which you assert is the by-product of the Fronteir- so in effect, government would be the by-product of the Fronteir since the Fronteir helps shapes Culture. I'm not sure how this is relevant, so maybe we could clarify this issue some more if we wish to continue discussing this particular point.

Okay, YOU can't get to Mars by yourself, which means YOU must DEPEND on some "OTHER" to get YOU to Mars. Now, the "OTHERS" that can get YOU to Mars, are the SAME "OTHERS" that YOU want to get AWAY from. Now, WHY would an "OTHER" want to put YOU on Mars if all they get is the metaphorical "Finger" once YOU get there?

Self sustaining is a Utopian ideal that should be strived for, but NOT planned for. The reality of life and the situation will dictate for a very long time to come that any space endeavour is ultimately linked to Earth in some form- either as a resource, or as a market. So self sustaining bases are great, it isn't practical- you have to ask questions like- is it cheaper to produce and ship a roll of toilet paper from earth, or is it cheaper and easier to create the trees, tools to cut the tree, processing plant for the lumber, water for the trees, energy for the plant, another plant to convert the lumber into toilet paper, etc... Thats self sustaining. How do you see that EVER being accomplished? Not to mention that any improvements in launch costs or transit times ultimately DEFEATS the goal of self sustaining (your arguments AGAINST Luna now can be used against Mars)

You can say the same exact thing about anywhere, so it is a moot point. If all places are equal in this regard, then why is Mars any better?

Well, Rosseau argues that prior to man entering into Civil Society, he is in a State of Nature- which means that all that he needs, is his, all that he uses, he posses- in the state of nature, as I understand it, Man has a right to everything, but owns nothing, as such, he can claim anything he wants, but he can never posess it truly. The transistion from the State of Nature is when Man can actually POSESSS items- that is, we each, as individuals, recognize each others right to posess "things"- however, the trade off is that we no longer have a right to everything- we limit our freedoms to gain more freedoms- I can't have everything, but I can have some things, completely- does this make sense?

This lays the foundation for a social compact- an agreement- which all society is- an agreement between indivduals. As such, when we enter into society, we agree to respect the Will of All, which is the force which protects and ensures the social compact- I recognize your right to own your house, you do the same for me- however, if the General Will decides that "I" need to move out of my house, the General Will can then superceed my individual right to my property.

Understanding this basic concept is crucial to developing a framework for an eventual society. I know using Rosseau is ironic for this endeavour, since he also argues that the People themselves must decide what type of government they want, as to impose something upon them is to court failure.

What are you NOT allowed to do here that you would be able to do once on Mars?

Well, lets be a bit more specfic- what principles are they denied? What form of government are they NOT allowed?

There are politcal hurdles involved with getting to Mars, not to mention any unresolved politcal disputes over what is done with Mars once humans can actually go there- so in both instances, there are politcal hurdles to the objective, why do you feel that the Martian politcal hurdles are more surmountable than any earthly ones?

Living in a vacum on an alien planet millions of miles from any kind of re-supply or support is EASIER than the ocean? Both situations are diffucult, and both probably have advantages and disadvantages- but the fact remains, anything you can do on mars, you can do on earth easier and cheaper- the infrastructure is here and there is NO launch cost.

Yet, besidesbeing generally a "malcontent", what do these politcal visonairies offer mars? By all accounts, there is no room for wasted space on Mars- everyone must pull their own weight. So the question is, what do these people offer the REST of the martian people who are there for the scientific research and the exploration (even the commercial intrests?)?

You fool yourself by believeing that you can escape the "outside powers" (whom YOU happen to be a part of) when by neccessity and by reality you are required to depend on those very same "outside powers" to place you outside of their reach.

This thread is created with the hope that we might discuss the relevance of the theories presented by Rosseu in "The Social Contract" when considering the best form and means to create a "Martian Government".

While different forms of government will be presented, the focus should be on which, and how, these different governments succeed (or fail) in relation to the ideas expressed by Rosseu.

All interested parties are welcomed.

Do you understand WHY we have to interpret the constution? Do you realize that our nation is no longer composed of slaves, indentured servants, and instutionalized bigotry? We have to interpret the constution, and it must be flexible with the changes of time and society (like our framers INTENDED) or it becomes irrelavant. Changes in culture and technogy force us to reinterpret our laws and apply them to new situations- case in point THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Our forefathers intended for a 'well armed' 'militia'- but did they intend for that well armed militia to have fully automatic weapons?

But that is what the constution DOES say! Some citizens feel that when they are forced to pray it violates their personal beliefs (some do not believe in God)- forcing someone to pray when they do not belive in prayer is wrong. Even if there is no coersion, the State cannot advocate any religion over another, or the belief in god over the non-belief of god- the State must remain neutral.

And they may continue to do so until someone has a problem with it. Just becuase the majority want something dosen't mean that it is right. The rights over the majority are equal to the rights of the minority in the eyes of justice.

Facinating! And where exactly would one find this in the constution?

And if we apply this reasoning, we come to the conclusion that the State may not make a law that pushes religion in general, since there are those who disagree with the very concept of religion. If I don't believe in God, why must i be forced to pray?

Well, no, because you are already operating from the assumption that you KNOW what the framers intended in all situations- you really can't know this. So they base their interpertation on precedent and what is WRITTEN. Lo and behold, people read the same writing and interpret it differently- they do this when they must APPLY the law to a NEW CASE, which usually involves situations that the framers never even dreamed! Roe vs. Wade, the framers had no clue.

Which is EXACTLY what the framers had intended! It's a flexible document, which means we don't have to keep coming up with a new wheel everytime we get to a point where the Constution dosen't cover "something".

I really don't understand why you think that the judical branch will, or can abuse us. All the judical branch can do is slow implementation of public policy- there remain plenty of checks to prevent them from becoming "oppresive" (even if that were possible). A popular law that gets struck down will be reworded in a way that will pass constutional muster- end of story. So whats the big deal?

Ammendments are hard to pass for the very fact that we don't WANT ammendments. Ammendments are like the word of god- they are philosphical stances more than actual law- which is one reason that we can "interpret" them.

Yet what you suggest would make it UNRESPONSIVE. Everytime there is a disagreement that is not covered by the constution, any change in social norms or technology ultimately means we have to draw up new "ammendments" to deal with these unforseen problems- so what happens to the disagreements while we are busy making new ammendments?

Which is why the Judical Branch can overturn any legeslation- it's to prevent abuses by the majority- it's to prevent a demagogue from getting control and overturning all our rights.

But that is what your argument ends up supporting. The jusdical system is need of reform, not the judical branch. Keep trying.

Time for US Government 101, repeat after me:

In America, not a single judge in all the land, can CHANGE a law. ONLY the Legesilative branch (Both houses of Congress) can change a law.

In America, not a single judge in all the land, can VETO a law. ONLY the Executive branch (president) can veto a bill. A bill is what a law is before it has been ratified by both Houses of Congress, and signed and approved by the President.

The Judicary may only REVIEW a law, and only if someone contests the law- which means a CITIZEN, or group of citizens, of the US feels that the law is somehow unfair. The Judicary branch reviews the complaint to see if it is credible, then assess the complaint (in this case, the complaint about the CONSTUTIONALITY of the law).

No, what I describe is what is happening in the US.

The Judical branch has no power to change the Constitution. In other words, the Judical Branch is INCAPABLE of actually changing the Constitution. In order to change the Constitution, an ammendment must be proposed and passed by Congress, ratified and agreed to by 2/3rds of the States (each individual State has a State Assembly which ratifies the ammendment) and signed into law by the President. If you can name ONE Constutional ammendment that has been created or changed by the Judical Branch, I will mail you $1.

Judges are not rewriting the laws to fit their politcal views, they are interpreting the laws, and the constution based on their philosphical (and unfortunetly, politcal) beliefs. There is nothing wrong with "interpreting" a law based on their own personal view, after all, that's why they are judges- becuase they are expected to interpret laws passed by Congress and figure out how they apply (of it they apply) to the cases brought before them.

They are chosen by The executive branch, and confirmed by the legestlative branch- every part of the system gets a say in who is going to be a judge- that's the fundamental check and balances that allow for compromise in choosing judges.

Again, the Judges can only INTERPRET laws and the constution- that is what governs their decisions. Any law that conflicts with our Constution is struck down becuase the Constutiopn is basicaly a Master list of what the government can and cannot do. It's fairly easy to see this in action: Someone, somewhere passes a law that prevents you and I from speaking our mind in our home- that is illegal since it violates my personal privacy (in my home), and my free speech, so the law is struck down.

However, if the same law is passed as a Constutional Ammendment, then the Judical branch can't do anything, and the law is considered legal.

Not all popular laws should be protected- whats wrong with expecting a law to stand on its own, why should "popular" laws be exempt from judical review?
Before you answer, Jim Crow laws before the Civil Rights movement used to be VERY popular- that dosen't make them right.

Wrong. The judical branch is the ONLY branch of government that PROTECTS the Constution. It is what prevents a despotic regime from taking over and trashing our liberties. They don't make laws, they don't make policy- they only review disagreements and decide who is "right" based on their interpertation of law.

The Judical Branch, as is, allows for peaceful resolution of conflicts between opposing parties within the US. It prevents abuse of the minority by the majority, after all rights are universal and immutable, irregardless of "popularity".

Learn about the US government before you start to critize it- there's plenty to complain about, but your argument as is, is, well, wrong.

Project Orion, and indeed the entire concept of exploding small fissible material as a source of propulsion is sound and doable.

The concern about materials able to withstand the blast is misguided, but understandable. It is merely an exercise in material science to come up with an adquete alloy that can withstand the frequent blasts- I believe they succeeded in developing a plan for this very problem- a special alloy encases the parts of the ship that receive the direct blasts- I forget what it was called, but it reduced the material by only a fraction of a millimeter- the end result is that this could be achieved.

Also, it should be noted that they aren't talking abotu using H-Bombs and the other assorted horrors of atomic war- these are very small, controlled, and directed nuclear blasts- not hundred of megatons, but several magnatitudes smaller.

Now think about THIS: You reduce the cost of launch by creating a vehicle that can cheaply place lots of tons in orbit.

How hard do you think it then becomes to create a large number of kinetic kill weapons (a 20 ft shaft of solid metal dropped from orbit can put a very large hole in the ground).

I fail to see how the government, i.e. the PEOPLE, i.e. SOCIETY, have no obligation to help others within our society. Programs like Medicare and Medicade provide the meas for those without adquete health insurance to recieve adaquete health insurance (debatable about quaility).

What would YOU tell all the women and their babies who recieve prenatal care through medicade?

I am going through that link you provided on your last post, interesting take on politcal theory...

However a few questions:

The "vision" of anarchy is a direct democracy based communal grass-roots effort at engaging peoples based on an "association" which would engender leagues and confederations which would then join in larger confederations. It seems that the "anarchy vision" is one of self-defined commonwealths who would maintain soverigntigy over their direct geographical location, and that individuals would make decisions for their communities.

Now, the problems I see right now: If you reduce the level of "soverigenty" down to this community level, what recourse is available to other communities when they have a disagreement with another community? What if community A is stealing from community B? It seems that what is actually being offered is a city-state ideal of self-governing.

SOunds great until we start to extrapolate from this point. The rise of the nation state was to ensure domestic tranquiility by reducing the threat of outside aggression. In other words, the nation state is the direct result of economic and military alliances formed to ensure that participants could maintain their liberty and their way of life from outside ussuption by either commercial manipulation or outright invasion.

While i sympathize with your goal, I find fault with your logic on humanities ability to easily choose this avenue of politcal development. How does anarchy as you define it fill the role of the nation state by preventing outside aggresion or economic slavery by larger commercial interests or larger groups of "confederations"?

You are reducing everyone to individual untis, you are DIVIDING people- not uniting. As such, larger groups that are able to unite will have a greater advantage, those that fail to unite will be at a disadvantage.

Unless you have a plan that will somehow fundamentaly change human behavior- ie resource aqusition and accumulation, this cannot work. Unless you have a plan to resolve all wolrd conflicts (which are ultimetly based on resources), anarchy will not work.

The "weakness" is not illusionary. The inherent weakness in any system is US and our less than admirable traits. Hierarchal systems do not make good people bad, nor does it make bad people good- it merely acts as a system to give people incentive to act in "good" ways that are acceptable to society, and provides dis-incentives when people act "bad". Anarchy strips away any and all incentives and purports to be a better alternative without providing a solution to the weakness of human character. Human beings are hierarchal by NATURE, it is our pre-programmed biology to have dominant and submissive positions- if you do not account for this natural tendancy then you have a system that has failed from the very begining.

that's assuming thaey have access to alternative points of views, which has yet to be adquetly established. You may claim that the internet will allow for any and all points of view, however this leads to the direct problem of too many voices drowning each other out- it also fails to address problems when information is controlled by only a few major outlets. US is an example- there are only a few websites that handle a majority of the internet traffic- that means those few websites have defacto control over tha majority of the people in regards to information content.

And if only one person wants to be declared their own town? And if they would be the only one affected, wouldn't they be the only one that gets to vote? Then what happens when you start taking votes based on "townships"?

And what if it dosen't affect you directly, but will in say ten years (water rights being but one example)? Or say that a township would like to experiment with biological agents? Should no one else have a say?

A collective framework IS a hierarchy- it is merely based on mutual agreement enforced by an understanding of all members, however there are clear lines of responsibility and expectations.

The problem with what you offer is that there is no incentive to follow any decree or result. There is no mechanism for protection.

Can I argue a negative? RFC can't be expanded into a larger political system becuase it does not allow for fair and equitable means of representation and enforcement of decrees. The RFC does not deal with 100 million voters- how exactly do you have 100 million people adquetly have their say and make sure that they are becoming informed on the issue?

And as WRFC increase, the ability to monitor and make educated votes on each decreases. The system fails as it gets larger- but hey, go ahead and use it at the town level.

So you think that by replacing the "one day vote" system with a 365+ day vote you will get a better return? On what do you base this redicoulous assertion? None of the fundamental problems of our system are answered, they are only perpetuated- except now it takes place 265 days out of the year.

You suggest a different form of slavery, so put the rhetoric aside. All systems depend upon well rounded individuals, but guess what, you don't always get em- so how does your system account for individuals that are not "well rounded"?

Ahhh, but your ethics are different from mine, so what right do you have to "l;iberate" anyone? Aren't you really suggesting that you have the right to enforce your value system on others if you disagree with theirs? Isn't the whole point of anarchy to avoid this in the first place?

Are you suggesting that individuals, and society, is better off when people enforce their own value system on others with no oversight by society or the community? That is what your argument is now suggesting.

Point of clarification, all politcal parties, yes, ALL, politcal parties are based on an ideaology. Both parties maintain power by providing either to more people with less money, or less people with more money- we have two parties that struggle to find an equilibrium.

If everyone didn't ban together to create groups, then yes, you would have your utopian ideal. The system that you go on to propose is just as inherently flawed as our current attempts at democracy in that it does not address the main problems:
1. Demagogury (sp, i know, leave me alone)
2. Flow of information- the system you describe where everyone gets a say for a few weeks sounds good- however the system becomes unstable the larger it gets.
3. knowledgable pundits- the system as described forces individuals to make decisions outside or their personal experience (what the #### do I know about nature reserves?) or rely on other individuals- so how do you allow the people to make informed and educated decsions?
4. Daily life- how are people expected to live their lives, raise their families, work, etc- and then make time for "voting" and all the requesite research involved in order to become informed?
5. With no control over when votes are collected or started, how do people plan their lives? What if you're on vacation to earth when one of these things come up that is important to you? Saying- internet avoids reality becuase staying connected ALL THE TIME is not a viable nor realistic solution.

As for a monarchy on Mars, of any sort, why? Some have offered a "face"- this is merely a symbol, it dosen't have to be a person so is an artifical and silly argument for a form of governemnt where I would theroritcally be obligated to support another individual and family for no better reason then their genes.

Some have argued that monarchies can stay above the politics- I cry foul. Monarchies, especially constitional ones, are just as subject to forces of politics- those who say otherwise are not doing their history and are being naieve.

If you want a representive for foreign emmisaries and dinataries, have an elected government choose the "Martian Fool"- he has no power, no privelages, no special treatment, is chosen for a one-term limit, and the only function is to cut ribbons and dedicate new buildings.

We think we have made progress by translating the feudilistic economic system into the modern day feudalistic (capitalism) system and now you want to go back to kings and queens? Has no one learned anything?