New Mars Forums

Happy birthday to meeeeee...
Happy birthday to meeeeee...
Everybody!!!  :raises his hands to direct the chorus:
Happy birthday dear Ryyyyyyy-aaaaaaaaan...
Happy birthday to MEEEEEE!!!

Clark, we just seem to go head to head a lot don't we?

I'm a Libertarian!  I don't want to use tax dollars.  I don't want to try to maintain a political consensus either.

I wouldn't complain if it did get done that way though.  Getting to Mars comes before reforming our political system in my book.

Responding to the original post...

I would hitch a ride with the Mormon group, but I probably couldn't stand it for too long.  I'm too stupid to be let into Mariner, so I'd try to make it in Sharonov/Golconda.  I like the diversity anyway.

The Mormon group would have to be renamed too - Mars Zion would be better.  (Mormons don't really like being called mormons that much.  It started out as a derogatory statement from nonmembers back in the 1830's.)
The Mormons would be just as successful as Golconda or more so.  They are very industrious and operate in the free market system very well.  They also don't like to waste time and money on things like alcohol and prostitutes.  You could expect them to build the most beautiful temples.  They would be a bright white contrast to the red Martian desert.  The Golcondans should expect a large missionary force to come knocking on their airlocks.  "Lock the doors - It's those mormons again!"

Thanks for all the replies to my libertarian post.  I suppose the two law system is a bit extreme, but I'd say it would be a big improvement on the current system.

If things worked idealogically I'd be a communist, though.  The sad thing is communism has never been practiced by a country as a whole.  It has just been dictatorship or oligarchy under the name "communism" to confuse the masses.  A few religious groups have practiced a form of communism that approach the real spirit of the system.  My understanding of the spirit of communism is:  Everyone works at what their best at, and everyone uses what they need.  If you can't produce enough to sustain yourself you still get what you need from the others.

The most notable I can think of are the Mormons (Latter-Day Saints).  They called it the 'United Order'.  For a few years the small church pooled its resources (a 100% tithe) to support its members.  Everyones standard of living was good while it lasted.  But even a cohesive, homogenous religious group couldn't handle it.  Some members were still to selfish to contribute 100% of their property.  I don't blame them - there were some pretty wealthy converts.  So, after a few years of the United Order 'the tablets were broken' you could say, and tithing (10%) became the norm.

I'm sure other religous (or other) groups have tried similar systems.  Any examples out there?

By the way, in another thread I advocated sending cohesive groups like this to colonize Mars in the early years.  It would help with the psychological pressures.

Civilization and Culture -> What will society on Mars be like?

Well, about Enron.

If my idea of the 2 law system - no lying and no force - were in place with severe penalties attached, then the people Enron hurt would be compensated (in time) with the garnishing of wages or confiscating of property of the directors of the company.

The transition to this system would be difficult the way I've been putting it, but once people started telling the truth and stopped hurting eachother it would work (utopian view, of course).  Therefore, to make the transition easier, we would change/delete (mainly delete) unnecessary laws and govt programs one at a time.

For example: Cosmetology - Currently you have to go through expensive schools and get licensed TO CUT HAIR!!!  I don't care if my barber went to school.  If he can cut my hair the way I like I'll patronize him.  If he can't he has two options - learn how to do it right or find another line of work.  Nobody (except movie stars) would sue over a bad haircut, so he doesn't have to worry about that.  He can't kill anybody by giving them a bad haircut, so why should his business be regulated.  It just wastes tax dollars.  His prices will be cheaper if he doesn't have to make up the expenses of initial and continuing education and licencing.  The govt need not worry about bad haircuts.

If the majority of people think an industry is to dangerous to deregulate then we don't have to.  I might like our nuclear reactors well regulated.

I might have mentioned this one before but we could give companies the option to opt out of the system.  Any business that doesn't want to deal with the FDA or other agencies can just stamp "unregulated" on all of their products.  This way if consumers are scared of buying "unregulated" green-colored meat (wimps) they can just go with the regulated version.

Surely some of our laws can benefit from Libertarianism.

Yes clark!

If, for example, you caused someones death from unsanitary food preparation you should be punished.  Now, the punishments would have to be a lot tougher than they are today.  No slaps on the wrists with a month in jail for murder anymore.  I'm thinking labor camps instead of jails (make them pay their own way).  If they ever get out of the labor camps, garnish their wages for the rest of their lives.  That kind of stuff.  And, let's not forget to make every business persons' history easy to access so consumers know who to avoid.

Now, a business can avoid these nasty punishments in several ways.  The easiest would be to subject itself to a private regulatory agency.  (Just like the current government agencies, but more efficient.)  This would shift all or part of the liability to that agency.  Most big businesses would go for this because it would give consumers a lot of confidence.

Small businesses would probably just follow generally accepted practices and cater to people who weren't sue happy.  By the way, individuals would also have their records readily available to businesses. The business could refuse to serve them if they were deamed an unnexceptable risk (i.e. sue happie).

I think that without private ownership investors will not send people to the other planets.  The outer space treaties have shown that governments lose interest if they can't claim the new territory.  Private individuals want ownership of what they develope as well.

But, it doesn't have to be they same as it currently is on Earth.  A person can own as much land as they want even if they never set foot on it.

Here's a law that might prevent that:  A person may own extraterrestrial real estate only if that person lives on that extraterrestrial body.

Only Martians can own Martian property.  Only Asteroidis can own Asteroids.

What do you think?

Ian,
At first glance I assumed you were from Eastern Europe but I see you live in Pennsylvania.   ??? What makes you think of Eastern Europeans before thinking of the Middle Eastern people? Seriously, I would like to understand your logic.

Well, if people are like me they have never even heard of Coast 2 Coast.  So, he's not being misunderstood, he's not even being listened to.

Can I tune in down in southern Colorado?

I agree that Nasa had to play catch up to the USSR for quite a while.  But remember, it was the USSR not Russia.  Russia today just doesn't have the funding to pass up the US.  I wish somebody would though.

Nice Ideas.

I'm just a business student so politics make my eyes glaze over after a certain point.  As a businessman I am drawn to Libertarianism because it would make things simpler.  But hey, I'm open to other ideas as well.  Like capitalism...bla.. its had its day.  It do value the free market though.

Maybe on Mars we could implement the co-op system where you can only own stock in the company you work for.  (I know this is not very libertarian but...shut up.) :;):

Here on Earth I think I would classify myself more as a third-partyist than anything else.  We are controlled by a powerful two party system.  So, we need to hear some ideas from another corner if we are to keep from stagnating.

Maybe we could form the Frontier Party.  We could use the idea of a need for a frontier to keep the human spirit alive.  And conveniently, Mars is the best frontier to pursue...

...We're going to do what we do everyday Pinky - we're going to take over the world...ah ha ha ha ha!!! :laugh:

I'm still kind of new to this Libertarian thing so I'm not sure about everything.  But, here are two libertarian responses.

1.  Extreme libertarians say that you shouldn't have to serve on a jury if you don't want to.  Concerned citizens could register for jury service if they felt like it.  Any problems of a jury pool becoming corrupt or one sided could be mitigated if the (normal, good, fair, or whatever) people would simply register once they saw things getting out of hand.

2.  Moderate libertarians say jury duty is one of the powers of government.  Tough luck you have to help out.

If there are any other Libertarians in here, please correct me if I'm wrong.