Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

AltToWar · 2002-11-18 01:13:52

The Mormon church is rich as hell.

If it were placed on the fortune 500, it would be somewhere in the 200. More income than gap and nike. The largest Cattle farm in the US is owned by the mormons.

The mormons Love real estate. They love to snatch it up.

I suspect that if mormons decided they wanted to take a colony on mars, it would be no big streatch to come up with a story about how Jesus went to Mars, and mormons should too.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-18 03:47:21

How would you know what somebody who read it would say?

If you did read it, you're simply a liar.

clark · 2002-11-18 10:12:31

I admit that Ares will allow anyone to come- to say otherwise flies against what Byron stipulated. That said, I also rightly point out that Ares has no financial incentive to allow or have more people in Golocanada- they are two seperate statements.

Please, explain what financial incentive Ares Corporation has in bringing more people to Mars when their business plan is predicated on bringing mineral resources from Mars to a terran market.

The new settlers, the ones we've already agreed Ares won't stop, do have an incentive, namely, a place to live.

If they can pay the cost of living there. Again, please explain what financial incentive Ares would have in allowing competition for production of basic living neccessities? Ares would have complete control over the market- why share it with would be competitors?

I'm sure they would welcome the odd-ball scientist with a big grant- the scientists are not competing with Ares Corp- but would be miners and farmers would be. Again, what point is there for Ares to invite competition? The people that do go to "make a buck" are either going to be producing something, or servicing others- the primary market is the small number of miners working for Ares, and whatever tourists and scientists are there- Ares again has a financial incentive to reduce the number of miners- which reduces the overall market. How are people going to make a living in this situation?

Ares isn't looking for Golconada to make a profit, it is a neccessary capital investment in order to make their business plan work- anything that Ares can do to reduce the need for Golcanda, they will do. Since they need Golconda only as much as neccessary, why would they invest any extra capital into expansion?

People going their only help defray the neccessary cost of operation, it dosen't actually provide any real value to Ares corp.

Ares makes its profit from mineral production and sales- Golcanda is not part of their business plan. AJ, you're the cheerleader for free market capitalism- well, here it is.

The god almighty buck can get things done, but it usually only gets things done if you can make a buck, and on Mars, there ain't no buck to be made- not in supporting people living there.

Bill White · 2002-11-18 11:34:37

AJ writes:

Capitalism is simply what people do when there isn't a coercive economic planner bossing them around

I can agree with this, however, what often seems to be forgotten is that Socialism/communism certainly ain't capitalism - but - mercantilism ain't capitalism either. IMHO Adam Smith would be aghast at the protectionist / oligopoly policies being bandied about by US corporate interests allegedly in the name of capitalism.

No stock trader ever wants a level playing field - he/she always wants the inside scoop;

No banker ever wants to loan money at prime - usury would be grand if it were not a felony; and

No manufacturer ever wants to compete fair and square. Every businessman-woman secretly hopes to become a monopolist or corner the market.

Sensible regulation and law (example: printing counterfeit US currency is a felony) aid economic growth and prosperity by assuring preductable results. Making it illegal for stock brokers to lie to their clients (Ever see the Schwab ad - "Lets put some lipstick on that pig and sell, sell, sell!") is wholly good IMHO.

When wealthy business interests obtain the inside track through campaign donations to the elected officials, the result just ain't capitalism regardless of what Kiplinger's magazine may proclaim. All this being said - we can safely ignore Adam Smith to the same extent we can safely ignore the law of gravity.

Bill White · 2002-11-18 12:01:34

On a different track AJ writes:

Scientologists couldn't raise the money.
If there's one thing Scientologists know how to do, it's raise money.

Okay, you are right about this - but are there as many Scientologists as Mormons and do they have as much money in absolute terms? Also, do the leaders of Scientology really desire to convert every human being, or do the leaders merely wish to remain rich and powerful? Also, I read somewhere that L. Ron Hubbard copyrighted the sacred texts and to quote them in public without permission gets you sued. Pretty hard to become a mass market religion on those terms.

Also, there are 5 or 6 Mormon senators - a tipping point in the US Senate.
Suppose Senator Hatch [R - Utah] decided to trade support for selected judicial appointments (or other non-essential Bush agenda items) for $25 billion in federal aid to fund Mars - - wouldn't it fly through Congress with full Administration support?
Recall the havoc Senator Jeffords caused 2 years ago when he switched affiliations. I am not saying 5 Mormon Senators will become Democratic (that will NOT happen) - - > they just threaten to vote with the Democrats on select issues UNLESS the needed billions are given to do Mars. This is done in back rooms well below the radar of the popular press.
But that leads to an American colony, not a specifically Mormon one. I suppose they could wait until costs come down under the influence of government-funded exploration and then start their own, but they'd give any potential competition the same advantage.

Exactly - almost. Mars One will cost far more than Mars Two, Three or Four due to R&D costs. The US taxpyer pays for all or part of the "flags and footsteps" that need to come before settlement effort begins. Pay for the learning curve (at least in part) with someone else's money and then spend your own money once the technology has been proven.

The "competition" would have the same advantage IF the competition knew it was being competed against and was making plans for its own colony. But, if the Rapture is nearly here, why bother with a Mars colony. Let the Mormons build that fool colony, for all the good it will do them once the Rapture gets here.

Question: Would funding a Mars colony help Mormons persuade Americans they are not anti-science and thereby possibly win converts in competition with anti-Darwin Pentecostals and evangelicals? How many religions claim to be "forward" looking rather than "backward" looking on issues of science?
You're assuming that Americans who care whether a religion is "anti-science" would be willing to ignore archeology.

Touche! - Still looking for those Lamanite swords... or horse fossils?

But, sometimes "seeming" is more important than "being" when it comes to public opinion.

Question #2 Recall our making babies thread. If the Mormons make Martian babies as fast as is safely possible (I agree with clark about the need to husband resources) and if left alone for 100 - 150 years they would "own" the planet no matter what the United Nations might say.
Unless others are doing the same. For example...
Question #3: If Salt Lake City funded a colony does anyone doubt the Vatican would follow suit? Sounds like a possible new fangled space race - a "kinder and gentler" space race. . .
At least Catholics qualify as Christians. I'm not sure about a religious space race being kinder and gentler, though.

Catholics won't do it first for the same reason US football teams don't throw for long yardage in the 4th quarter when ahead and Euro football teams don't pull the goalie when ahead. Mormons might actually do it first for the reasons found on the other side of that same coin.

Kinder and gentler? With scads of video cameras, all Terra would be watching. The hippie chant from 1968 would actually be true - "the whole world is watching"

Thus (maybe) Mars violence might be suppressed since too much brutality in the name of God could really cost support back on Earth. But I agree this is only a maybe. . .

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-18 19:18:41

clark;

I admit that Ares will allow anyone to come- to say otherwise flies against what Byron stipulated. That said, I also rightly point out that Ares has no financial incentive to allow or have more people in Golocanada- they are two seperate statements.

Are you thick?!?!

You say they'll allow others, and then immediately argue they won't. They have no financial incentive to allow others to live in Golconda, BUT THEY WILL ANYWAY!

And it's Golconda. Can't you get anything right?

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-18 19:52:29

Bill White;

Socialism/communism certainly ain't capitalism - but - mercantilism ain't capitalism either.

Absolutely. Protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, and taxes and regulations big corporations can afford and little ones can't need to go.

Sensible regulation and law (example: printing counterfeit US currency is a felony) aid economic growth and prosperity by assuring preductable results. Making it illegal for stock brokers to lie to their clients (Ever see the Schwab ad - "Lets put some lipstick on that pig and sell, sell, sell!") is wholly good IMHO.

But even under the most libertarian state those would be illegal. Remember, the libertarian no-nos are the initiation of force, and fraud.

When wealthy business interests obtain the inside track through campaign donations to the elected officials, the result just ain't capitalism regardless of what Kiplinger's magazine may proclaim. All this being said - we can safely ignore Adam Smith to the same extent we can safely ignore the law of gravity.

You, Pat Galea, and myself seem to be the only people on the forum with even the most minimally sensible notions about economics.

Okay, you are right about this - but are there as many Scientologists as Mormons and do they have as much money in absolute terms?

I doubt it, but if the price goes down enough, they won't have to.

Also, do the leaders of Scientology really desire to convert every human being, or do the leaders merely wish to remain rich and powerful?

I guess the Hubbardland colony depends on whether Scientologist leaders figure out a way to use it to separate fools from their money.

The "competition" would have the same advantage IF the competition knew it was being competed against and was making plans for its own colony. But, if the Rapture is nearly here, why bother with a Mars colony. Let the Mormons build that fool colony, for all the good it will do them once the Rapture gets here.

I've met people who think that way. But I don't think it'll matter as much as you think. Baptists, in particular, are big on missionaries. The Triennial Convention was founded when some Congregationalist missionaries (who still bore a resemblence to the Puritan founders of that denomination) became convinced that infant baptism was wrong, and became Baptists. The Southern Baptist Convention left the Triennial Convention over the issue of missionaries (...slaveowning missionaries, but let's not dwell on that). The mindset you describe may even encourage sending settlers; "If we don't send them up soon, the people of Mars will be Left Behind!"

Catholics won't do it first for the same reason US football teams don't throw for long yardage in the 4th quarter when ahead and Euro football teams don't pull the goalie when ahead. Mormons might actually do it first for the reasons found on the other side of that same coin.

But English Catholics founded a colony in North America, in spite of having huge areas nearby that were much more Catholic than anywhere on Earth now. (That colony was Maryland.) And I'm not sure in what sense Mormons are "losing". Well, except the spiritual. But they don't know that.

Kinder and gentler? With scads of video cameras, all Terra would be watching. The hippie chant from 1968 would actually be true - "the whole world is watching"
Thus (maybe) Mars violence might be suppressed since too much brutality in the name of God could really cost support back on Earth. But I agree this is only a maybe. . .

I hope you're right, but it only takes one to undo all that, and then everyone else can claim to be just defending themselves.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-18 22:18:44

Oh A.J., how your ignorance livens up these forums. clark is simply saying that even though Golconda allows people to come, Ares Corp would own and control everything, so obviously they wouldn't allow competitors to come. They would only allow the average, luddite mine worker or something, and perhaps a few small services, which would still ultimately be controlled by Ares Corp. Al will still have to get his peppers from Ares Corp.

Feel free to explain how Ares Corp can profit if Golconda allows a bunch of low cost techno-pioneers or whatever to live there.

On, and BTW, please don't call me a liar for simply pointing out your tripe is just that, tripe.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-18 22:41:29

Josh;

So they'll let in anyone who can pay his way over, as Byron said, but that doesn't mean they'll let anyone who can pay his way over. Damn you're stupid. Here's what Byron said, yet again (since the short bus set needs reminding):

The philosphy of Ares Corp and [Golconda] is simple: If you can pay your own way, you can come.

NOT if we feel like letting you in. How simple does it need to get? If you can pay your own way, you're in. Period. No limits, no provisos, nothing. Ares doesn't care who shows up.

I always knew you were too foolish to have anything worthwhile to say. If you won't admit to even such an obvious error on your part, you're not worth talking to at all.

I called you a liar because you're a liar. The closest thing in that message to a personal attack is my comment about you having memory loss. And I could have said a LOT worse. As for substance, a fool like you wouldn't be a qualified judge.

Adrian or Phobos;

Is there any way to killfile this idiot?

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-18 23:02:07

Bryon's stipulation doesn't say that they'll let anyone who can pay their way come and set up any business they want. It just says they can come. Indeed, Byron expressly says that Ares Corp owns everything. So you're insinuating that Ares Corp will gladly and happily allow techno-pioneers to set up camp in Golconda.

And if you are really too deslusional to see your own insults, I would suggest seeking help. You corrected some grammar, which of couse, is fine and dandy, but the approach you took was deriding at the very least. You implied that I had a memory loss, when in fact I was talking about the whole of my posts to you (most would agree that I have been civil to you- despite the urge to be a total asshole). You called me, in one part, someone who inverts reality, someone who is nonsensical, someone who grossly misunderstands human nature, all without any sort of justification at all.

Yes, insulting indeed.

And Ikonboard doesn't allow one to killfile, so I'm sorry that you have to read my stupid posts. If you don't want to reply, of course, feel free to not. I won't go that far, I will only not respond to pointless drivel, like ?human nature.? Unless someone is going to provide some backing along with it, instead of using it like some magical wand.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-18 23:53:29

Fool;

Bryon's stipulation doesn't say that they'll let anyone who can pay their way come and set up any business they want. It just says they can come.

It is laissez-faire all the way here

I suppose now you'll say that laissez-faire means having to get permission for everything.

Indeed, Byron expressly says that Ares Corp owns everything.

The economy is 100% free-market, with Ares owning the lion's share of everything, of course, as they paid for the place to begin with.

I suppose you could read it to mean that they have a majority interest in every piece of property, but that would be stupid (which means you'll do it). The very fact that anyone can come means that it won't be the case; in order to maintain majority ownership, they'd need to make new settlers agree to give Ares majority ownership in anything they might produce. But there are no limits and no provisos. Therefore the only way it makes sense is that of everything in Golconda, Ares owns the lion's share of it in fee simple.

the approach you took was deriding at the very least. You implied that I had a memory loss, when in fact I was talking about the whole of my posts to you (most would agree that I have been civil to you- despite the urge to be a total asshole). You called me, in one part, someone who inverts reality, someone who is nonsensical, someone who grossly misunderstands human nature, all without any sort of justification at all.

So you went back and read it looking for straws to grasp. It's completely inadequate to support your initial statements, much as you are completely inadequate for anything remotely connected to thinking. If you can't handle a tone indicative of well-earned contempt, quit trying to refute your betters.

Let's look more closely at human nature. I said you grossly misunderstood the concept (not the thing itself; you deny it exists, which is even dumber). And you did. You'd have to be as insensate as a rock to miss the OBVIOUS justification. But then, if you weren't you wouldn't be ranting against human nature in the first place. Since I have to make everything absurdly easy for you, the existence of human nature means that many very important things are in common, not that all things are in common. So your characterization of my comments on human nature is itself a lie.

Actually, I rather liked them, so here they are again:

You've grossly misunderstood the concept of human nature. Of course souls are different (psyche comes from the Greek for soul and is usually translated as such, as in Bloom's Plato's Republic). And obviously, souls are more diverse than cultures. Each has his own unique type. But why can we communicate? If you say "I love you" to a loved one, it depends on both you and the other person knowing what love is, which means both of you have experienced it. So even a simple statement depends on a common experience of an inward condition of the soul.

Your statement that I was "without any sort of justification at all" is YET ANOTHER LIE. It's a justification that you can't refute. No, fool, denying it exists will not make it go away.

I will only not respond to pointless drivel, like ?human nature.? Unless someone is going to provide some backing along with it, instead of using it like some magical wand.

There's more than enough "backing" to establish it. You're just too stupid to deal with it, which is why you should shut up. You have nothing of value to say and no possibility of learning anything. You're an intellectual nonentity.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-19 01:28:18

I suppose now you'll say that laissez-faire means having to get permission for everything.

Um, laissez-faire means the government only interferes when it comes to enforcing peace and property rights. If Ares Corp owned everything, they wouldn't have any rational incentive to bulid on to their colony. Don't you get that?

Laissez-faire does mean that you have to get permission for everything when a monopoly owns everything. So sure, yes, it's fucking laissez-faire, the government doesn't involve itself in matters of prostitution, or other silly services people don't really require or whatever. But most resources are still owned by Ares Corp. Period. Real competition cannot exist. Only stupid ?Wild West? shit can exist. Ares Corp wouldn't let techno-pioneers set up camp, because it would destroy their whole society, workers would simply stop working for Ares Corp and work for themselves. And Ares Corp can enforce that because the have property rights, and the government damn well does what Ares Corp says.

I'm glad you know what my answers will be, now. Can't wait until you don't need me to justify them. Then you'll finally stop moaning.

The very fact that anyone can come means that it won't be the case; in order to maintain majority ownership, they'd need to make new settlers agree to give Ares majority ownership in anything they might produce.

Ares Corp owns the whole settlement. There's nothing stoping Ares Corp from creating a big flat ?tax.? Laissez-faire property rights let you do anything you want with the property you have. Ares Corp doesn't have to sell parts of the settlement, they could (and probably would) rent it. This is why I suggest the small low cost dormitories for grunt workers. It's not a stretch at all.

If you can't handle a tone indicative of well-earned contempt, quit trying to refute your betters.

Um, ?well earned?? Hey, I don't mind being insulted when you justify your insults, then I just take it as harsh criticism. But when you make baseless claims and go off in left field, I'm going to point it out. Sorry, Charlie. Funny how, of all the people on this forum, you're one of the only people I actually find truely insulting.

The rest of your post is so redundant, I almost replied to it and said the same things twice, only worded differently.

Let's look more closely at human nature. I said you grossly misunderstood the concept (not the thing itself; you deny it exists, which is even dumber). And you did.

No, I don't misunderstand the concept at all. I've said before (perhaps in this thread, who knows, we've been rambling for quite a few pages now), that human nature is best defined as things we do instinctually, since humans are so definable by their environment. Otherwise human nature is undefined.

Human nature is often innaccurately used to apply traits of ones culture to the whole of humanity. This is what I'm trying to get you to do by trying to get you to define ?human nature,? but of course, you won't (even though you think you can use it in that context- ?it's human nature to consume?).

The whole basis of this discussion (in the first pages of this thread), is that you use human nature in a context which is inherent to a specific way of life, not inherent to all humans (the very meaning of human nature being ?something that is inherent to all humans?). Using it in that context requires that you show where that way of life applies to all humans. You haven't, and you cannot. You are the one who misunderstands the concept of human nature.

You think that you can use human nature so candidly, that it becomes a nice magic wand to wave around whenever you want to avoid a valid point.

No, fool, denying it exists will not make it go away.

No, liar, I don't deny that it exists. I only say that it is undefined.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-19 03:23:53

Fool;

Um, laissez-faire means the government only interferes when it comes to enforcing peace and property rights.

There is a story that the famous French mercantilist minister, Colbert, once asked a group of businessmen what he could do for them. One of the men, Legendre, is supposed to have replied, Laissez nous faire--leave us alone. Several French authors in the earlier part of the 18th century, including the Marquis d'Argenson, used the slogan laissez faire. The great Turgot attributed the rule laissez faire, laissez passer--leave things alone, let goods pass through--to Gournay. Sometimes a phrase was added suggesting the social theory behind the slogan: le monde va de lui m?me--the world goes by itself. Today the term laissez faire has come to mean: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives.--Ralph Raico

Laissez faire doesn't mean just the government letting things happen unless a violation of someone's person or property happens. It means everyone leaving it alone, minding their own business.

If Ares Corp owned everything, they wouldn't have any rational incentive to bulid on to their colony. Don't you get that?

But when some settlers arrive and build a vault for themselves, with a connection to the rest of the people living on Golconda and some agricultural domes, Ares no longer owns everything. But you say why would they let anyone else in, financial incentives, blah blah blah. I say, READ IT AGAIN YOU THICKHEADED DOLT:

If you can pay your own way, you can come.

Again:

If you can pay your own way, you can come.

If you can pay your own way, you can come.

Is it sinking in yet, or do you think that some who can pay their own way can't come?

Of course, you disagree with the stipulation, which is why you're always trying to throw it out while pretending to agree with it. The problem for you is, that involves you in a contradiction, and makes you look like a thickheaded dolt as you continually say, out of one side of your mouth, that anyone who can afford it can live in Golconda, and then deny it out of the other side. But you aren't even right in disagreeing with it. Even clark says, "Ares corp. has no incentive to feed anyone, or even worry about it- just hire Mormons and they'll feed themselves- one less thing to worry about. How many companies buy your meals?" Just substitute settlers for Mormons.

Ares Corp wouldn't let techno-pioneers set up camp

If you can pay your own way, you can come.

it would destroy their whole society, workers would simply stop working for Ares Corp and work for themselves.

You're forgetting something. Actually, you never knew, even though I've explained it repeatedly.

They'll work for Ares because it'll be in their best interests. If it weren't, they could stay on Earth or go to Golconda as non-Ares-employees, which they'll be able to do because if you can pay your own way, you can come. The fact they were working for Ares in the first place means Ares is paying enough to make it worthwhile.

No, I don't misunderstand the concept at all.

You attempted to refute it by saying we have differing psyches, which only makes sense as a refutation if "human nature" means everyone having identical souls. But that's not what the concept is.

You demonstrably grossly misunderstood the concept when you wrote your "refutation" of it. Maybe it's gotten through your thick skull by now. Now get this through your skull: If you can pay your own way, you can come.

I've said before (perhaps in this thread, who knows, we've been rambling for quite a few pages now), that human nature is best defined as things we do instinctually, since humans are so definable by their environment.

Well, whenever you said it, you were wrong. Unless you define "instinct" in such a way that your argument would be rendered semantic. And the environment certainly will not change the innate nature of humanity. Suppress it, maybe, but always as a suppression, with the innate nature continually trying to assert itself.

Suppose the government set up a Junior Anti-Sex League. Do you think it would work? Suppose we lived in Plato's ideal city. Do you really think everyone would only get it on once a year for reproduction?

Or a related example: the Spartans tried to train greed out of their citizens. Spartan governors of conquered areas, outside of the city, were famous for robbing their subjects blind. Aspects of human nature denied return in immoderate forms.

No, liar, I don't deny that it exists. I only say that it is undefined.

By "undefined", you mean it doesn't exist. It's a verbal trick to turn a single human nature to the natures of humans in particular cultures, which is no human nature at all. A form of intellectual dishonesty, which is to say, lying. It's also wrong, of course; if your radical cultural relativism were true, communication between individuals of different cultures would be impossible.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-19 04:34:39

Wow, you need some serious suppressants.

Laissez faire doesn't mean just the government letting things happen unless a violation of someone's person or property happens. It means everyone leaving it alone, minding their own business.

Well, the dictionary claims it means;

1 : a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
2 : a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action

One must note, though, that the first definition is the context we're speaking in, here; Golconda has a government. But it's not necessary to pick one definition, as they're practically the same. If I abstain from direction and have the individual freedom of choice and action to do anything I want within capitalism, obviously I'm going to do what's in my best interest. I can get away with it.

But when some settlers arrive and build a vault for themselves, with a connection to the rest of the people living on Golconda and some agricultural domes, Ares no longer owns everything.

No. Ares Corp owns most of the settlement. Ares Corp could do many things to take over your property. Make you sign a contract so that you give over your vault. Require you to pay extraordinarily high taxes, and so on. Ares Corp has absolutely no reason to make things easy for you.

Indeed, Ares Corp wouldn't let you build on to their settlement if you proved to be competition. There is absolutely no way in hell, Ares Corp, the owner of the whole settlement, would possibly allow Venus Corp to build on to their vault and dig for the same sorts of minerals. If you think they would, you obviously don't understand simple business practices.

I think you are either having problems understanding this, or you truely think that Ares Corp wouldn't leverge their power as well as they most obviously would.

If you can pay your own way, you can come. <snip insane repetition of the same thing>

They can come if they pay their own way. Yes. Can they set up shop and become major competition for Ares Corp? No. Ares Corp owns the domes in which you grow food. Ares Corp owns the factories in which minerals are processed. Ares Corp owns the machinery. Ares Corp owns everything.

I don't even know why I'm basically reiterating this, since you clearly don't show that you know what laissez faire means.

Of course, you disagree with the stipulation, which is why you're always trying to throw it out while pretending to agree with it.

I never once said that no one could come. I only said, explicitly, that no one could come and be a real competitor. Yes, you can build onto the colony, if you're not a competitor. No one is saying you can't.

The question is, though, would Ares Corp, with all its power, allow a competitor to exist? Everything you ought to know about business (supposedly you know economics more than anyone here- or so you like to pretend), should tell you that Ares Corp would not.

And please, don't conflate me with clark, I said nothing about Mormons, in fact, I didn't even address the Mormans once in this whole thread. Ares Corp could theoretically hire people from Mariner, if they wanted to go there and submit to all sorts of authority.

Also, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that people couldn't come to Golconda, explicitly. And I'm not going to reiterate what I did say, for like the fifth time.

If you can pay your own way, you can come.

No I can't. I wish I could. But I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to. It's called poor business practices. I come to Ares Corp, and I use my technology to mass produce things for people, from consolidated handheld devices, to large machinery capable of mining the very things Ares Corp is mining. Ares Corp would not allow it. Byron never said that Ares Corp would allow competition, and his wording even implies that Ares Corp wouldn't. All it would take is one other corporation with higher wages and better resources to put Ares Corp out of business. Ares Corp simply would not allow that to happen.

They'll work for Ares because it'll be in their best interests.

Yes, I agree. Because Ares Corp owns everything they have to buy their food from Ares Corp Cafeteria, and they live in Ares Corp Dormitories. And the only secure place to work, outside of prostitution, small time services, or street pandering, is Ares Corp. Yes, it's obviously in your best interest to work for Ares Corp.

The fact they were working for Ares in the first place means Ares is paying enough to make it worthwhile.

The trip to Mars would be worthwhile to a very large number of individuals. So don't think that Ares Corp would be enriching people. I can honestly see people working their asses off just to see Martian sunsets.

You attempted to refute it by saying we have differing psyches, which only makes sense as a refutation if "human nature" means everyone having identical souls. But that's not what the concept is.

Um, psyche was meant to imply human psychology, or mind, not soul. It should have been obvious in the context it was used. This is why I am wary of saying that ?human nature? is defined, because the mind is a very complex thing, and human nature would have to be something which transcends the mind. And really, there isn't any behavior we can attatch to the psychology of all human beings, except for things that are inherently instinctual.

I'll reiterate; you were using ?human nature? in a context that was obviously inherent to one society, one group of similar minds which see society a certain way.

Maybe it's gotten through your thick skull by now.

Well, not quite, but you can keep trying. That is, unless you're going to take my advice and stop responding to my ?worthless posts.?

Now get this through your skull: If you can pay your own way, you can come.

Okay, I never disagreed with that. So get this through your thick skull: If you practice smart business practices, you won't allow competition.

And the environment certainly will not change the innate nature of humanity.

And what, may I ask, is the innate nature of humanity? Can you tell me? Can you define what behavior all humans will exhibit on some level or another? This is really what I've been trying to get you to do all along, but you simply won't do it.

Suppose the government set up a Junior Anti-Sex League. Do you think it would work? Suppose we lived in Plato's ideal city. Do you really think everyone would only get it on once a year for reproduction?

I have no clue. But sex is instinctual; I honestly don't think we can become asexual through psychological treatment. This isn't a semantical argument, though. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that sex is an instinct. Ever watch PBS?

By "undefined", you mean it doesn't exist. It's a verbal trick to turn a single human nature to the nature of humans in a particular culture, which is no human nature at all.

No, by undefined, I mean that the common usage by right wing pundits, and silly people on this forum, is incorrect. And that human nature is best defined as instinct. Ask Websters:

the nature of humans; especially : the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans

The key word here is ?fundamental.? Look it up.

A form of intellectual dishonesty, which is to say, lying.

Not at all. Lying is going about pretending that one culture is human nature, when the facts are in complete opposition.

if your radical cultural relativism were true, communication between individuals of different cultures would be impossible.

I see no justification for this. The human brain is obviously similar no matter what culture you are within. So communication between different cultures can be easily facilitated through the enviornment. I can pick up a stick, and use my cultures discriptor for stick to explain to some tribal person how we say stick; and we can train each other this way.

Of course, explaining capitalism, corporatism, and so on to a tribal man would prove difficult. And so in that respect, communication would definitely be ?impossible.?

Oh, and, BTW. I NEVER SAID NO ONE COULD COME.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-19 04:44:08

Did someone just say something?

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-19 04:48:47

Bill White · 2002-11-19 10:12:36

-IF- it were economically feasible to Ares Corp to set up a mining colony on Mars - THEN - it must be economically feasible for Beta Corp to start another mining colony a few hundred kilometers away. All this stuff about Ares Corp owning everything is extremely unlikely unless the United Nations has somehow given Ares Corp an artificial monopoly on Mars mining.

Maybe I am being unfair to Byron, or breaking the rules of his hypothetical, but mining as a profitable scenario for opening up Mars never made much sense to me. - IF - there is money to be made in mining and shipping resources to Earth (and I have real doubts about that), smart money would invest in Beta Corp -

Let Ares Corp spend billions (100s of billions?) on R&D and probably lose a few settlers/employees to sudden death. Then Beta purchases improved equipment that has been field tested and follows those strategies that appear successful while skipping the dead end ideas. Beta generates the same revenue as Ares at a lower cost.

There is no moral victory in opening the 1st platinum mine on Mars if the 2nd platinum mine is built by your rival for 1/2 the price. But, build the first church on Mars. Even if your rival builds the 2nd for 1/2 the price you still have bragging rights and a very high and prominent pulpit. Or, be the other guy:

"Hey Earth! Our religion is #2 and we saved a bundle of money!"

Bill White · 2002-11-19 10:22:53

When wealthy business interests obtain the inside track through campaign donations to the elected officials, the result just ain't capitalism regardless of what Kiplinger's magazine may proclaim. All this being said - we can safely ignore Adam Smith to the same extent we can safely ignore the law of gravity.
You, Pat Galea, and myself seem to be the only people on the forum with even the most minimally sensible notions about economics.

Hmmm. . . Thanks, I think? I better leave this alone as I often agree with lots of other folks on this board as well. . .

Anyway - I just see red when I hear some neo-con pundit proclaiming that by extending Disney's copyright protections in and to Mickey Mouse we strike a blow for capitalist freedoms. Maybe extending the copyright time limits for Mickey Mouse is a good idea and maybe its not a good idea - I can see two sides to that question - but don't tell me it was done in the name and spirit of capitalism.

clark · 2002-11-19 11:02:50

A.J., you're an interesting fellow, are you getting along better with your friends now, or do you still have a hard time opening up to them about your views? It seems odd that someone who seems bright enough goes to such lengths to alienate themselves for no apparent reason, but I kind of enjoy this personality, it's a shame you only allow it to come through here?

But I digress, let us turn to some of the issues at hand.

I understand your ideological stance, and how you are at least operating from the basic tenets stipulated in the economic philosophy of open market capitalism. However, I believe you are doing this discussion a disservice because you are not dealing with the actual problems that are being pointed out and defined. No matter how much you may cry about this issue, Ares Corporation will not allow competitors (in the classic economic sense) into Golconda (or even Mars for that matter). Ares corp. will allow anyone that can pay their way- the reason - because these people can pay their way and Ares Corp. can make a buck. That after all is what motivates capitalism, right? The buck. Now I ask you, what incentive is there for Ares Corp to allow someone onto Mars and into Golconda if they can't make a buck from them? To assume otherwise is a bit like expecting Disneyland to allow competitors into their parks to sell refreshments. After all, anyone can go to Disneyland, but we don't see people setting up stores there do we? I have no doubt that there would be a long line of people who would like to go to mars, and to Golconda, is it outside the realm of reason to consider that in all likelihood, Ares Corp would choose those individuals where they can generate the largest profit from versus those where they could generate the smallest profit?

Isn't this simple market analysis? Isn't this simple application of market control? Every company wants complete control of any given market- that is the ultimate goal, because it leads to the ability to dictate price, and by association, profit margins- what would be the incentive for Ares Corp to give up the golden goose? Mariner is motivated by some predefined social goal- the Mormons, a religion. Golconda is the god almighty dollar- it is the deciding factor in everything. Who comes to Golconda- those who have the money- who would that be? Would be entrepreneurs, would be colonists, would be tourists, and would be scientists. Now, a scientist would not be competing with Ares Corp because they are imply there to provide a different service unrelated to production of basic necessities (the only market on mars). Would be entrapaneurs are actually last on the list of desirable people that can go to mars for Ares Corp because they represent the smallest profit margin and a potential threat to their monopoly (production of basic necessities). How do companies decide which markets to sell their product to? Profit analysis. They go where they can make the most bucks for the least risk. Is this so hard to admit?

Ares Corp could even allow entrepreneurs, but it would more than likely be less attractive or lucrative for the would be Martian businessman- Ares Corp, by dint of size and position is able to dictate terms of economic activity- perhaps demanding 50 percent or more of all profits generated in Golconda. Or, they simply maintain an economic grip on the base by charging ridiculously high rents for their space- reducing profit margins for independents to virtually nothing- "hey, if ya don't like it, go be a Mormon!"

Golconda and Ares Corp show the problem with Lassiez faire economic policy- I've pointed this out before, but placing absolute faith in any human devised system is unwise and demonstrates a lack of an understanding of history.

Ares Corp will own everything by virtue of the fact that they would be producing the basic necessities (air, water, food, and power). Sure, the settlers can build their own vaults, but they still have to draw power, air and water- from Ares Corp.

And Bill, I would imagine that if some company could mine mars and make a buck, they might gain exclusive mining rights for the first 50 years- this would effectively counter the problem you are pointing out in being the first mining company on Mars.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-19 11:46:19

I can't resist pointing out economic stupidity, so:

The fool's stuff about competition is nonsense. Ares will not be free of competition in any case, because there will be plenty of mining on Earth and elsewhere in space. And, as Bill White points out, another company can set up nearby. But as far as the actual Sharanov mines Ares is depending on, there will be no competition, since Ares will own all the mineral rights. So letting new settlers in won't have any effect whatsoever on competition.

Provided, of course, you refrain from pretending that Ares will be trying to get a profit from food. Ares' business is mining, not farming; as soon as they can get away with it, they'll make their workers get their own food. One less thing to worry about.

And while I'm at it, I won the human nature debate. Take the sex example: he says it's "instinctual", which is merely a difference of terminology. But to save face he implies I consider one culture identical with human nature, which confirms what a lying POS he is.

Bill White · 2002-11-19 11:48:40

And Bill, I would imagine that if some company could mine mars and make a buck, they might gain exclusive mining rights for the first 50 years- this would effectively counter the problem you are pointing out in being the first mining company on Mars.

Full circle! LOL! This is where I agree with you, clark on the larger issues of political philosophy.

Property rights can only exist where there is a hegemon (Hobbes Leviathon) to establish and protect those rights or the people have in a quasi-unanimous manner established a Locke-ean consensual Leviathon. Otherwise, who stops Beta Corp?

How does Ares stop Beta unless Ares is a Martian hegemon or is backed by a Terran hegemon? Maybe Byron posits that as a given but an Ares hegemon is most unlikely without a Terran hegemon.

Who on Earth has authority to grant exclusive Martian mining rights? Only a Terran hegemon or Leviathon which as of 2002 is NOT the United Nations.

Property rights on Mars will be a great forum to re-play Locke vs Hobbes plus Marx, Adam Smith and Proudhon (maybe):

The right of private property is perhaps the greatest check or limit to the power of a political hegemon, however, private property can only exist when there is a political hegemon to legislate such property into existence to begin with and thus the right of private property is contingent on the Will of the political hegemon.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-19 12:03:53

clark;

No matter how much you may cry about this issue, Ares Corporation will not allow competitors (in the classic economic sense) into Golconda (or even Mars for that matter).

Already answered. Nobody in Golconda will be a competitor.

To assume otherwise is a bit like expecting Disneyland to allow competitors into their parks to sell refreshments. After all, anyone can go to Disneyland, but we don't see people setting up stores there do we?

But Golconda isn't like Disneyland. Disneyland is a source of profits; Golconda is not. The closest thing to Disneyland is the market back on Earth, that's where the money comes in. But then, it's not an enclosed environment. Theme parks are a poor analogy, since there are significant disanalogies for each phase of the business.

Bill White · 2002-11-19 12:08:28

To assume otherwise is a bit like expecting Disneyland to allow competitors into their parks to sell refreshments. After all, anyone can go to Disneyland, but we don't see people setting up stores there do we?

That does not happen, because, Disney can rely upon the Federal government and the state governments and the court system to back up their property rights. Issues concerning bootleg DVDs of "Bugs Life" also illustrates this point.

So, who defends Ares Corps right to a monopoly on Mars mining?

A.J.Armitage · 2002-11-19 12:17:19

Bill White;

It would be better to say that property rights are only recognized with an enforcement mechanism, the hegemon or the near-universal consent. Going back to Locke, if you collect acorns, they're yours by natural right. If someone overpowers you and takes them, he doesn't abolish your right to them, he merely commits an injustice.

Bill White · 2002-11-19 13:01:07

It would be better to say that property rights are only recognized with an enforcement mechanism, the hegemon or the near-universal consent. Going back to Locke, if you collect acorns, they're yours by natural right. If someone overpowers you and takes them, he doesn't abolish your right to them, he merely commits an injustice.

I am far from hostile to the idea of "natural right" - however - I also see the origin of Locke's assertion of "natural right" as being a theory formulated to oppose the divine right of kings. (Property is given to subjects by grace of the King who obtains his authority from the hand of God.)

Who was it who said "natural right" theory is but nonsense walking about on stilts?

After Darwin, basing political systems on "natural rights" can be tricky -and- Rousseau had a valid point when he says property began when the first man had the audacity (and firepower) to say "this is mine" and the assertion stuck.

My current preference (and its only my personal opinion as I am neither scholar, magistrate or dictator) is that Adam Smith's view of the usefulness of private property and free markets can be morally justified because it helps maximize personal freedom as widely as possible. Property and wealth are "good" to the extent they assist humanity in getting other greater goods. (The role that assured private property rights can play in checking the unlimited power of government is part and parcel of my views.)

I currently tend to favor the views of Amartya Sen who I believe argues that free markets and private property are good to the extent they facilitate maximum human development and human freedom. He also argues that free markets and private property plainly do this much better than socialism, for example.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-11-18 01:13:52

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#52 2002-11-18 03:47:21

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#53 2002-11-18 10:12:31

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#54 2002-11-18 11:34:37

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#55 2002-11-18 12:01:34

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#56 2002-11-18 19:18:41

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#57 2002-11-18 19:52:29

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#58 2002-11-18 22:18:44

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#59 2002-11-18 22:41:29

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#60 2002-11-18 23:02:07

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#61 2002-11-18 23:53:29

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#62 2002-11-19 01:28:18

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#63 2002-11-19 03:23:53

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#64 2002-11-19 04:34:39

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#65 2002-11-19 04:44:08

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#66 2002-11-19 04:48:47

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#67 2002-11-19 10:12:36

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#68 2002-11-19 10:22:53

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#69 2002-11-19 11:02:50

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#70 2002-11-19 11:46:19

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#71 2002-11-19 11:48:40

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#72 2002-11-19 12:03:53

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#73 2002-11-19 12:08:28

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#74 2002-11-19 12:17:19

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

#75 2002-11-19 13:01:07

Re: Fun and games - 3 hypothetical Martian settlements...

Board footer