Sound like a good government?

1 luv m4rs · 2004-04-27 15:38:41

<i>Our government will be based on the current American government, with a few changes made. I think the US government is a great system, but it’s not the ideal system for our situation. Mars, no matter what some people would like to think, WILL NOT be the same situation. It’s far more dangerous on Mars, and for that reason, the colonies will be run in a more tyrannical way.

First off, we have 4 colonies. As a result, we have 4 leaders. These leaders have nearly absolute control- anything they say, goes. There's one exception, the leader lacks promotional power; this power belongs to and will remain with the people. This power is checked by 4 sub leaders in the colony. They have as much power as is given to them by the people of the colony. However, they have 1 undeniable right: if 3 of them want their leader overthrown, it can be done. At that point, a new person is elected by the people, but it cannot come from the 4 who overthrew him. Voting is done simply, any idea that can get a petition with 100 signatures is put to vote. Simple majority puts the law into effect.
Democracy is a great system of government for a Mars colony. Everyone needs to work together for the betterment of the colony, so there shouldn’t be any dispute about everyone being equal. Most importantly, we’ll do away with money. Why bother? If everything is public property (with minimal limitations), money is of no use. All it does is allow people to take advantage of others.

The Judiciary system in the US is by far my favorite part to the government, and as a result, we’ll simply drag it along with us. We’ll have 1 supreme judge and 2 assistant judges in each colony. Law enforcement shouldn’t be much of an issue, so 3 judges may be too much for 250 people. If needed, the people can vote to change it. In the same way, we plan to have 10 law enforcement (police) officers in each colony. That’s 1 for every 25 people. In cases of a homicide, all 10 might be necessary, but all in all, they may be a bit of a surplus. Again, they can vote to fix it if it’s not the right number.

Problems will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Eye for an eye, or perhaps life for an eye, if it ever needs to get to that point. We only have 1000 people, we can’t afford to have 1 of them messing up life for the rest of them. We’ve considered putting a prison on one of the moons, but that would come later on, if people decided that people should be locked up rather than killed or just let go.</i>

This, being a HS paper, is not very formal, nor is it very complex. I want to know, do you guys think it would work? Mad Grad says that we should have money... :down:

clark · 2004-04-27 15:45:40

How are disputes resolved between seperate colonies?

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-27 16:45:01

How are disputes resolved between seperate colonies?

With high-speed projectile weapons ventilating pressurized structures, of course.

Ian Flint · 2004-04-27 17:06:26

With only one thousand people split into 4 colonies you will need none of what you just mentioned.

I come from a town of 1000 people and here is how it worked there. The mayor and city counsil positions were all voluntary. They didn't get paid and had other jobs outside of public office. There was one policeman who could round up a few volunteers to help take care of anything big.

The main problem you have is simply an excess of government. The people will immediately vote to kick everyone out of office.

To get a better grade on your paper maybe you should just add a zero or two to your population.

Bill White · 2004-04-27 22:06:12

How are disputes resolved between seperate colonies?
With high-speed projectile weapons ventilating pressurized structures, of course.

Dude, come to Chicago in August for the Mars Society convention. This post just earned you one free drink courtesy of me!

clark · 2004-04-28 08:50:05

If I find myself out that way, I'll buy one for ya too! :laugh:

1 luv m4rs · 2004-04-28 20:52:18

Well, 1000 is what we're sticking with, but if you guys really think that the management of an entire planet can be done as an extra job that you do in your spare time....

el scorcho · 2004-04-28 21:29:35

Well, initially the councilmen/gov't officials won't be running a whole planet; they'll be running a small colony. If 1000 people are split equally into 4 colonies, that's a very manageable size. I like the idea of having city councils; however, you'd better elect them, because the average Joe Blow volunteer is gonna have a LOT less legitimacy than somebody who has been given a mandate to govern. I suggest an at-large write-in ballot upon landing and setting up the bare essentials, followed by a runoff with the top 5 (or some other number)vote-getters to run for 'mayor.' The winner becomes the chief executive and nominates candidates for the city council, all of whom must be confirmed by the other 239 colonists.

How to settle disputes between colonies? The city councils each nominate two members from among themselves to serve as "senators" to some sort of regional congress, which meets biweekly. This shouldn't be too hazardous, as I'm assuming the colonies will be fairly close together (they'll probably have to be).

But anyway, I'm babbling. Time for Family Guy :laugh: .

idiom · 2004-04-28 22:35:10

at 250 people in a colony what is "a mandate to govern".

The mandate is approved by military and police so that they know who is the legit faction.

At 250 you can still have a a colony wide referendum on every little thing at meal times.

Is the "govenrment" going to collect taxes?

I think you are going to end up with one (elected) dude who settles disputes and worries about external relations (and stopping people firing high speed projectiles) and little else.

Nearly every thing is going to take care of itself or will be resolvable without "legislation".

deagleninja · 2004-05-01 14:43:17

Im currently fleshing out an outline for my own martian government. Things are still up in the air for the most part, but I'm going to base it on democracy, but it won't be voluntary. People will be drafted to their postions like jurors in court. Key to this government working is an absolute rule that there be no appointments. In other words, someone in power can't create judges or any other position of power.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-05-01 16:25:18

I happen to be working with I love Mars on this project, and we seem to have the government under control now. Thanks for the suggestions, he mentioned them to the group.

It's probably too late to change major things now, but there are a few more things I'd like to focus test on you guys. The reason we're sending 1,000 people is because that's written in stone on the assignment paper, and we're doing it because in a year Earth will be "unfit" for human habitation. Fill in any asteroid impact, methane burp, biowar, or whatev here. We have to relocate 1,000 colonists to Mars in order to save the human race. It's pretty dumb, doubling the number of cumulative humans that have gone into space, and SENDING THEM TO MARS, but I didn't write the assignment.

If any of you are familiar with the movie Dr. Strangelove you'll recall at the end Dr. Strangelove suggesting that a selet group of Americans move underground for the next 100 years to escape the effects fo the nuclear war. He suggests a ratio of 10 women to each man to increase, ahem, reporductive efficiency. The idea seems sound, each man could theoretically start the reporductive process once a day, but each woman could only have maybe one baby every 18 months. However, the problem is that, not to be sexist, there are far more men than women in the science and engineering fields where we're picking colonists. Ergo (Architect-speak time!), by keeping the Dr. Strangelove ratio we'll be automatically turning away many of the colonists we want.

The comprimise we decided upon was to have a 75/35 female/male split. Assuming that each woman could bear one child every 18 months this means that each four-person group (Of one man and three women) could produce two children every year. With a total of 1,000 people, this means that we can add 500 new colonists every year.

I tried to talk about this as scientifically as possible, but it might still accidently come across as sexist or something. I thought that it intuitively made sense to increase the population as fast as possible, there's safety in numbers, but some of the other groups thought this was odd. What do you think?

deagleninja · 2004-05-02 07:21:19

Mad Grad Student- To further increase the rate of population growth, assuming you have the means to support unlimited growth, maybe the crew should be all women?

The advantage of an all woman crew are clear. Males are not needed at all because all they supply is sperm, where the woman is needed in the absence of an artificial womb. Send women only and bring some frooze sperm to get you through the first 10 years or so that young males won't be producing sperm.

This also has the advantage of avoiding lover-spats over who gets the few available males. Carry a larger supply of froozen sperm and 10 years or so after the colonists begin you can continue making females only.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-05-02 16:24:06

Okay, deagleninja obviously hated the idea, I'm going to assume you're kidding about the frozen sperm/artificial womb idea. Too many unknowns, what happens when you can't revive the sperm? Anyone else have some constructive criticisim of the idea?

Here's another aspect of the colony, one that we're definately commited to but I'll tell you about anyway. We decided that in order to eliminate the radiation problems we'd burrow undergroud and base our colony there. On the surface would be five 1,200 ft. diameter greenhouses, an airport, and some refineries. What do you think about the mole people idea?

deagleninja · 2004-05-02 16:30:51

You could build a base underground or you could build it in the appropriate canyon to protect the colony from radiation.

And I don't hate your idea lol. I was being totally serious. I don't know what requirements your teacher put before you. I was assuming that you wanted the fastest reproduction rate possible for your colony. And as far as I know, though i'm not an expert, you can store sperm for years frozen. I seem to recall a story where a woman was fighting for custody of her child that she fathered with sperm from her dead husband.

Mark Friedenbach · 2004-05-02 17:39:49

If any of you are familiar with the movie Dr. Strangelove you'll recall at the end Dr. Strangelove suggesting that a selet group of Americans move underground for the next 100 years to escape the effects fo the nuclear war. He suggests a ratio of 10 women to each man to increase, ahem, reporductive efficiency.
...
The comprimise we decided upon was to have a 75/35 female/male split.

Wouldn't that dangerously destabalize the Y chromosome? Maybe not since there's only one male chromosome, not 2, I'm not a geneticist... In any case you'd have less variation among the population, can't be a good thing..

Mark Friedenbach · 2004-05-02 17:57:53

I thought that it intuitively made sense to increase the population as fast as possible, there's safety in numbers, but some of the other groups thought this was odd. What do you think?

Are you sure you can sustain such high growth rates? You'd have to make sure population growth does not outpace the resource base of the settlement, or you could be in far more serious trouble. I would imagine you'd want slow growth for the first few decades, until survival is ensured with multiple settlements and a growing support system.. Only then would I think it safe to relinquish population controls.. Have you run the numbers on how fast your life support and food supply will expand?

In any case, a 1000 people is a big number. When you're talking about colonies in space however, settlement count is more important than population. In my mind at least, it's far more important that you can jumpstart industry and start construction on new towns as soon as you arrive. Maybe split the initial colony in to four, each with ~250 settlers.

Acidrain · 2004-05-02 19:53:22

Perhaps the Government that we should have, should be based on a NATO type Unity. After all its more effective than the UN. NATO is based on the US structure of system of Government with a Military twist, that work together. Its structure is made to work with every part of other governments systems that al come under one type of Governmental system. NATO would be the Ideal structure for command and Government, so that all can work together.

Acidrain

Mark Friedenbach · 2004-05-02 20:44:55

NATO isn't a governing organization.

Acidrain · 2004-05-02 21:01:08

NATO isn't a governing organization.

Yes i realize that, but thier command structure is what is needed in the orginizational skills to bring the international community together. Which i might ad is needed and the infrastructure of what NATO is. I hope you dont expect us to model it after the UN, and thier idealogies!!!!

Acidrain

Mad Grad Student · 2004-05-03 22:33:02

Deagleninja: I guess I just kind of assumed that because you used the above emoticon to cover your post that you were angry about something. Whatev.

Mark: I don't see how the Y chromisone could be destabilized or anything. This stuff's been around for a long time, and it's been okay. For example, every Chatham Island Black Robin currently alive today (About 1,000) is decend from two robins alive in 1973. Now, we don't know if they're going to face serious problems because of this yet, but everything seems to be going well.

Actually, there is a way we thought of to keept the birthrate high for a while. All chordates (Vertibrates+ a few invertibrates like lancelets) are naturally female, just like in Jurassic Park. It turns out that there is one gene, labeled in that dry scientific fashion as the SRY-gene, that has to be activated within about 12 hours of a specific time of development. Everyone has the genetic material to become a woman, but men also have the info to become men, and in 99.999% of cases (I'd assume) this happens at the critical development stage. No gene, no boys.

So, all we have to do is insert a gene into half the women's chromosones that makes it so that they don't allow any of their descendants to recieve the SRY-gene. Keep the gene in for the first three generations, for fastest growth, then take it out in the fourth. From then on, it's 50/50.

What you have to remember is that we have an entire planet to grow into. When we need more room we'll just build another base. If it starts getting really crowded we'll start terraforming the planet. I don't know, that won't be an issue for a few generations, leave me alone!

Ian Flint · 2004-05-04 08:46:00

Instead of messing with the genes, why don't you just separate the male sperm from the female sperm?

This all sounds like "A Brave New World," and I'm totally against the whole idea of using women as baby making machines, but since we're on the subject...

Doctors can already separate sperm for couples who want a specific sex. Can we manipulate this SRY-gene yet? Do we understand the effects of that manipulation yet? I suggest, if you're saving the entire human race, go with what you already know how to do. Go organic. Go natural. Go, go gadget...

Excuse me!

If you mess with this gene you just might end up with a bunch of men trapped in women's bodies and vice versa.

clark · 2004-05-04 09:06:14

What are the constraints of the paper? What's out of bounds?

1,000 people fleeing the end of the world event on Earth... okay.

Everyone lives in the same habitat. Don't split the group, all that does is cause you to have a bunch of people all doing the same thing- you don't have that many. Bring the boys along, someone needs to watch the base during pregnancy, daycare, and nursing of the children (you also want to limit radiation exsposure of the women). If you can play with genetics (as in this is allowed), then I suggest you just do the fertilization of eggs. Basically, cut out the romance and harvest eggs directly from the womb, inseminate in a petry dish, and freeze. Implant the fertilized egg when womb space allows. Men should have portions of their testes frozen to ensure that even if they do go sterile (from radiation or premature death) their genetic material can continue on. All children are screened prior to birth, any major physical abnormalities are terminated (sorry, but with only a 1,000 people, on the cusp of survival, no time for the handicap ramp).

Looks like you will end up having the death penalty as the group cannot afford to watch and support those deemed dangerous to the group.

I think if you breed out the men in one generation, we're gone. The male contributes either the X or the Y chromosone, which would contain the gene that expresses male characteristics. The woman can only contribute an X chromosone. Not sure, but it's not something I would take a chance on if I wasn't sure.

1 luv m4rs · 2004-05-04 18:40:07

So get rid of sex for efficiency?

... you guys are, how do I say it, boring.... Did you know it's proven that lack of touch is unhealthy? Sex is medically good for you. Laugh, but it's true.

The idea behind 4 colonies is that Mars is volatile. If you watch any sci-fi movie with Mars in it (bad example), the 1 colony gets wiped out by weather.

The 4 colonies aren't going to be .__.
.|_|. (y'know, all close together)

They'll be spread out, so that if one half of the planet is in a dust storm and half of us die, the rest of us can live. (thought we may die, anyway)

clark · 2004-05-05 09:31:53

I don't think anyone is calling for humanity to give up sex. :laugh: It's pretty much about "saving" the species, which all comes down to how manchildren can be born. In a situation as you describe, it makes sense to take the steps neccessary to ensure that as many people can be born as possible. At least that was where I was coming from.

As for splitting up the group, it's a bad idea. All you have are 1,000 survivors- these are the only people who can help in any situation. The further away they are, the harder it is for them to come to the aid of others.

Why not have everyone live in the same colony, and build secdondary habitats that the colony can one day expand into, or flee to in case they have to abandon that particular colony? Just rotate a skeleton crew between as many of these secondary habitats as neccessary.

Don't post in yellow, it hurts the eyes.

Ian Flint · 2004-05-05 16:37:14

clark,

After going cross-eyed trying to read 1 luv m4rs' yellow posts, I simply highlighted the entire post. It makes a nice, easy-to-read, blue on white text.

By the way, does everybody read his name "One love for Mars"? Neat spelling!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-04-27 15:38:41

Re: Sound like a good government?

#2 2004-04-27 15:45:40

Re: Sound like a good government?

#3 2004-04-27 16:45:01

Re: Sound like a good government?

#4 2004-04-27 17:06:26

Re: Sound like a good government?

#5 2004-04-27 22:06:12

Re: Sound like a good government?

#6 2004-04-28 08:50:05

Re: Sound like a good government?

#7 2004-04-28 20:52:18

Re: Sound like a good government?

#8 2004-04-28 21:29:35

Re: Sound like a good government?

#9 2004-04-28 22:35:10

Re: Sound like a good government?

#10 2004-05-01 14:43:17

Re: Sound like a good government?

#11 2004-05-01 16:25:18

Re: Sound like a good government?

#12 2004-05-02 07:21:19

Re: Sound like a good government?

#13 2004-05-02 16:24:06

Re: Sound like a good government?

#14 2004-05-02 16:30:51

Re: Sound like a good government?

#15 2004-05-02 17:39:49

Re: Sound like a good government?

#16 2004-05-02 17:57:53

Re: Sound like a good government?

#17 2004-05-02 19:53:22

Re: Sound like a good government?

#18 2004-05-02 20:44:55

Re: Sound like a good government?

#19 2004-05-02 21:01:08

Re: Sound like a good government?

#20 2004-05-03 22:33:02

Re: Sound like a good government?

#21 2004-05-04 08:46:00

Re: Sound like a good government?

#22 2004-05-04 09:06:14

Re: Sound like a good government?

#23 2004-05-04 18:40:07

Re: Sound like a good government?

#24 2004-05-05 09:31:53

Re: Sound like a good government?

#25 2004-05-05 16:37:14

Re: Sound like a good government?

Board footer