New Mars Forums

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?

You are refrencing a 98 study- we have more up to date studies which state that the polar caps are composed primarily of carbon dioxide.

Or perhaps the millions of Afghanistan's that can now return to relative peace. Or the millions that were tortured, oppresed, and subjugated by an oppresive interpertation of religious text enforced by abunch of bandits.

Am I sorry that innocent people died in Afghanistan, yes- as a human being we should all be saddened. Am I sorry that there were few (if any) alternatives other than military force to restore OUR security, yes. SHould we have done it differently, no. Weep for those who lost their lives unjustly- we can make ammends by supporting the Afghanistan people and help rebuild their shattered country- however, do not neglect the fact that the amount of innocent life lost was minimal and that the US went to great lengths to ensure that innocent people were not killed.

Which actions have backfired? Do you know why we intervened in Afghanistan in the first place? Are you aware of our actions prior, during, and after the Soviet occupation? What evidence is there that supports your rather unfounded claim that the US installed terroist organizations in Afghanistan?

To robcwillis,

I'm sure minimum trajectories can be configured to allow for gravity captures from earth to moon to reduce the amount of fuel used- in other words, instead of doing an aerobrake, we utilize the gravity of mars to pull objects within it's orbit. Is it hard to imagine recieving facilities near the moon to facilitate this?

You are speaking about an unknown, based on unknown formulas. Do you want me to argue your guess?

So you would like me to accept that Mars, with antompshere, and more gravity is cheaper to launch from than the moon- which has no atmosphere, and has little gravity? Atmosphere creates drag, which means you need more fuel to break into orbit- more gravity means you need more fuel to reach orbit- more fuel means greater costs.

H20, which is KNOWN to be on the moon can be converted into rocket fuel.

One, "hundreds of billions" is a pessimitic opinion offered by only you without any type of reasoning provided for that obviously biased estimate. Two, the Mars Society plan is centered around similar lines- building propellant on site, so if it costs a lot on the moon, it will neccessarily cost a good deal on Mars, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make regarding the ultimate cost. Three, a gas station on the moon does more to serve space exploration than a gas station on Mars would.

If we have to spend the dough, dosen't it make more sense to build the infastructure where it will do the most good and provide us the greatest flexibility in space exploration? The moon at three days...or Mars, at 8 months every 2 years...

Cost of shipping from the moon can be greatly reduced (without a beanstalk) using magnetic rail launchers. Thus you could turn the moon into a manufacturing center- rail launch finsihed goods, crash land raw material onto the surface for collection...

Keep talking about self-sufficency... A Martian colony will not attain self-sufficency for several generations, so it is meaningless to talk about how mars places us in a better position. We haven't a clue on making REAL closed  bio-regenerative system- until that moment, any argument about "self-sufficency" is bull. Then there is all of the "other" stuff we take for granted here on Earth- which we depend on to maintain self-sufficency- all of that has to be done over in space. It takes time, a lot of time- and the labor involved in building in vacum and near vacum is the same, so spare me you rhetoric.

Yeah, too bad we can't make the "mini-world" bubble last for any appreciable amount of time. Look into the research into bio-dome 1 & 2 to see where that went. It seems self regulating systems require a large enough system to be flexible to small variations- smaller systems don't seem to have enough critical mass to maintain equilibrium.

Actually, there are several- hotels, toruism, mineral extraction, power produiction, etc...

While I agree in principal that much of our US tax dollars are wasted, I would hardly consider our expenditures in Defense to be "squandered". I suppose we could have our pilots fly vintage WW2 airplanes- that might free up some funds. Maybe we could have our army men pay for their own weapons- would that be acceptable? Or would you prefer for America to disolve it's highly equipped, highly trained, and highly effective military and not worry about world affairs or foreign oppresion? After all, slapping a rocket on your butt is a dollar well spent versus that same dollar protecting your freedoms...

Everyone thinks that money should be spent here in lieu of there- unless you have a specfic gripe, you waste air.

Your sarcasm betrays you- what's the reason we have so few losses? Could it be our unrelenting dedication to maintaing our military? Maybe...just maybe.

Well, we ARE a tool making species- and given that evolution favored the "smarter" monkey this isn't much of a surprise. However, evolution favored a tool making mokey that used tools to further survival- which is the search for neccessary resources to further our own lives and genes. So really, our nature is to apply knowledge in practical and useful ways that further our own survival and improves our ability to keep or get resources- technology has only made us more efficient and deadlier- not better.

Nether did the optimist- the realist beat them both out.

You would think so wouldn't you- however, I am reminded of an anecdote. Scientists working on the Manhattan Project during world war 2 didn't know if the A-Bomb would be a limited explosion, or if it would cause a chain reaction in the atmosphere and burn off all of the atmosphere...  Look no further than a five year old to understand how the human mind works- we touch, try, experiment...then learn.

Why do you assume that we can coexsist with knowledge when all science and technology has been used to further out ability to destroy?

Marx seems to think so... and given the direction of global capitalism, growing disparity in standard of living between third and first world nations, further automation of basic labor, shrinking middle class... I am inclined to believe that a prolaterian revolution (the kind Marx really envisoned) is an eventuallity if current global trends continue unabated.

I recognize your point, and I conceed that given "limitless resources" that many of our social ailments will be alleviated- however I am trying to point out that not all resources are, or can be limitless. There isn't a limitless supply of beach front property. There isn't a limitless supply of quality education. There isn't a limitless supply of tickets to a concert, etc...

Murder, rape, arson, fraud, smuggling, slander, libel, child pornography, assault and battery, disorderly conduct, drunk in public, speeding.... you're telling me things like this are the result of class struggle, or are these things that "neighbors" can deal with effectively and uniformily?

Everyone has a personal prefrence, more power to you. But just because a machine does something, that does not neccessarily make that something inherently superior to what a human can do.

Self-actualization is an on-going process- you can never "reach" it in the classic sense- like reaching a state of nirvana, it comes and goes depending.

Self-actualization is not a requirement for life- it is a philosphical understanding of motivation/drive.

But once again, why should I assume all the risk for someone else to recieve all the gain? It's not a matter of greed here, it is basic common sense. I have something, why should I risk that something for someone else if there is no direct benefit to me?

And I am also struck by the fact that a similar process is already in place- it's called a bank! I leave my money in a bank (money is a representation of work, or resources). The bank then promises to protect my resources and give me a small return on leaving my money (resources) with them. They then in turn allow other people to use my money (resources) to buy houses, cars, go to school, etc.- for a fee. The bank assumes the risk, yet gains control of my resources and uses them to help others build there own capital- which they do by borrowing from the bank and paying the bank back what they took plus some- the bank then pays me and takes what's left over. But at least in this system, there is an incentive to allow people to lend- in the model you suggest, it is flat out stupid. I don't think I am misunderstanding- the foundation upon which this theory rests is untenable and dosen't answer enough questions.

How am I confused?

You responded with the previous statement in response to my claim that the cost of shipping from mars is cost-prohibitive. One, you don't explain how this system would make shipping from Mars cheap and affordable. Two, what is NIFT- you should try to be more clear whith your abbreviations. Three, you seem to be completely disregarding the cost associated with operating cyclers in space (how do you maintain them), as well as cost of launching from mars to mars orbit, the cost of deorbiting into earth atmosphere, etc.

You are purposely missing the point of the statement.

i agree, however- I have yet to see a way for mars to become self-supporting. It has nothing of real value to earth so the neccessary capital for investment will never appear. Even if the intial start-up capital was provided, it dosen't seem that mars could trade anything other than science or tourism.

It might be used when there is neccessary medical treatment needed yet no rescue is available- a medical operation robot is then placed in all bases- all you need is one physician at one base and you then have all your bases covered.

Uh huh, but the moon-earth relationship, and understanding that relationship and history gives us more insight about earth and how luna functions within the geological, atmosphere, ocean cycle, etc of earth. It would provide a great deal of immediate scientifc return- at a fraction of the cost of a martian mission.

If you don't have the time, then come back when you do. If you have questions, you ask. Saying "No, you're wrong, adn I'll tell you how you're wrong if you ask me and when I have time" is not an appropriate way to carry on a discussion.

Unless and until someone points out how I am mistaken, I will merely ignore your silly remarks Alex.

How do you figure? 3 AU's is mighty big- that's 3 times the distance from the sun- the earth is 1AU. So you're saying that it is cheaper to take 3AU's worth of fuel and launch it from earth versus taking enough fuel to launch into orbit and then refuel there (without the launch weight penalty)? Unless you have some figures to back you up, your assertion is childish and counter-intuitave.

Going to mars is exspensive- you'll have to do better than that. The cost of building a soace telescope on the moon would be much less than sending humans to mars.

No, it is in essence the very problem of having this discussion. You maintain that if nothing prevents us from reaching a certain goal, then we will reach that certain goal...eventually. That in a nutshell is what you are telling us. So I ask, WHY are you telling us this?

I do not believe I am doing what you are doing becuase I accept the fact that the future is an UNKNOWN. As such, you cannot say anything is absoluetly "inevitable" becuase something unforseen by you, by me, or by the rest of humanity might show up to prevent the "inevitable". I can accept etrapolating from current events, but you should make that clear from the get go. You might also want to limit how far you extrapolate- look how the world has changed in the last 10 years, look how it has changed in the last 25, the last 50, the last 100...

You stated:

I then asked if it was arrogant to assume that we would always have this spirit, which is implied by your statement and by your general argument. I am not putting words into your mouth, I am applying your meaning and asking for clarification.

Yet your whole argument is predicated on humanity continuing this progress, which you admit is an unknown. So are you now admiting that your argument is based on an unknown (continuing technological progress)?

I am listening, but by your own admission you are not conveying your message as clearly as you would like. You are making a lot of statements that are based on interpertations of events or philosphy- It sounds like half of your argument is in your head and you are getting frustrated because I don't know the full meaning that you might have originally intended. Any inference I have gained from your posts is becuase I am taking your thoughts to the next logical conclusion.

Class struggle is the result of disparity of distribution of resources- so it still is a resource issue.

And as long as we have the resources (not just energy) for maintaing our current standard of living, we will be okay.

There is a bit more to economics than psychology. There is and always will be a demand for resources- as long as we have a dependance for life on any given resource.

But I have lost resources- when I gave them to you to go do something with them. As the system now stands, you borrow X with the understanding that you will pay me back X+something later- I take the risk of providing you X, you might not  be able to give me anything back- you get the ability to go do something with X, you had nothing, now you have something..seems a fair and stable trade to me- that's why Mars dosen't work. Mars cannot provide X+something under our current economic model.

Why should I give you resources (X) if all I get in return is the loss of those resources for an unknown amount of time with no reward for the risk?

Risk without reward = biologicaly stupid. Millions of years of evolution has favored the biological system that places risk only for reward, becuase why risk if there is no reward? Why take a chance?