Galactic government

Xenomorph · 2005-05-20 17:56:27

I don't know if this topic fits in this section. Feel free to move it.

Anyway, let's say in the future humans have colonized a great many planets, beyond the solar system. What kind of government system should be set up to link them all together? It most definitely should not be anything overbearing over tyrannical, but it should also be strong enough to link humans, so that humanity doesn't drift apart. How do you think this should and could be handled?

Gennaro · 2005-05-22 16:59:55

I think each system or even parts of systems would very much have their own governments, in other words, humanity will drift apart, whether we plan for it or not. The distances are simply too great and the particulars of ruling would be too diverse for a central authority to be of much influence or even purpose.
Just consider the antimatter photon drive, which is the fastest means of transportation imaginable to known physics. It can reach the end velocity of the speed of light (disregarding Einstein), but that would still mean a transit time of over 4 years just to reach the closest star system. If our presence extended to say Eta Cassiopeiae at 19.98 lightyears, an interstellar dreadnaught would take at least 20 years to reach it.

If faced with an outside threat, considered such a scenario is thinkable, the human species would on the other hand surely gather and cooperate to defeat it, more or less by instinct, I guess.

Perhaps one could imagine some nominal Emperor and his council directly ruling Sol, but his real authority would quite possibly be even less than that of the Holy Roman Empire after the Peace of Westphalia. There is not even any compelling reason for all of Earth to fall under his domain, actually. The point of such an authority, however, might nevertheless be infrastructural or other immense projects that individual colonies couldn't pull off by themselves. Such as early efforts on early stages of colonization, for instance.

If any, I think interstellar political control would in a way more resemble medieval Europe, both horizontally and vertically, rather than the modern national state.

Martian Republic · 2005-05-22 18:35:07

I would go more with a Constitutional Federal Republic as the primary central government with representative from each of those planets being sub-units of the Central Government. But they would be more or less be independent of there own self-ruling body with there own Constitutional Federal Republic charters to rule there own planet. Without some kind of rules, we would have conflicts there is no doubt and it will end in wars, with everybody demanding that it will be done there way or they will fight. So setting down boundaries in a Constitutional Federal Republic would be the best way to defuse that kind of a situation or otherwise you would be dealing with Empires and they will almost certainly choose to fight an interstellar wars too. That is also one of the reason that I favor writing the terms on which we will colonize space right now. To deal with future conflict before they happens. Because, there will be future conflicts and then it will be too late to make the rules by which we solve problems, because everybody will already be committed to what ever cause there committed to and tempers will be high.

Larry,

srmeaney · 2005-05-23 00:03:14

Perhaps one could imagine some nominal Emperor and his council directly ruling Sol, but his real authority would quite possibly be even less than that of the Holy Roman Empire after the Peace of Westphalia. There is not even any compelling reason for all of Earth to fall under his domain, actually. The point of such an authority, however, might nevertheless be infrastructural or other immense projects that individual colonies couldn't pull off by themselves. Such as early efforts on early stages of colonization, for instance.

And I got flack over a Space Commonwealth where people Govern themselves and are therefore held responsible for their own actions by every one else.

I'm holding out for the first Constitution that says: You have the responsibility to do what is Ethical and do what is Right.

Grypd · 2005-05-23 17:58:29

Still in the interests of humanity a form of Empire with a direct militaristic emporer is a much more effective system to defend humanity if we have long time lags between systems. An empire would be the fastest and incidentally more likely to keep a large standing army to protect its assets form of goverment.

Feel the force (as a whole legion of crack sardukaar come jumping on top of you)

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-24 09:10:56

So. . . we have vast territory with long time lags for both travel and communication.

There are historical models for this. The Roman Empire managed fine, as did the British Empire among others. The key is local governors that follow the guidelines established by whatever central authority is in place. Each region, planet or system operates autonomously for the most part but all have a set framework within which to conduct their affairs.

Not as good as a constant shuffling of population to keep things roughly homogenized, but adequate for a few centuries of expansion.

I'm holding out for the first Constitution that says: You have the responsibility to do what is Ethical and do what is Right.

Article One
Each citizen has the responsibilty to do what is drast and what is shlemik.

No one has any idea what that means, and that's the point. Who defines?

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-24 09:12:01

Moved to "Martian Politics" from "Other Space Advocacy Organizations"

reddragon · 2005-05-24 18:59:56

A galactic government should probably have very little power, allowing planets or nations to govern themselves according to what they believe is best for them. Few I imagine would like a government light-years away from their home that would almost certainly be out of touch with their needs and would be trying to create one system that would work for everybody despite the vastly different conditions that they lived in.

Therefore, I would suggest that there be only a simple constitution that ensures the right of nations to own territory and govern it as they see fit, basic human rights for citizens of all nations, and a promise between all the nations that they will not go to war with one another. Any nation that attacks another will be considered the enemy of all others. The constitution should not establish any sort of permanent legislature. Rather there will be a mechanism whereby a congress of representatives from all nations may be called into session when there is an issue of great concern to all humanity (such as invasion by another species) or a major dispute between nations which they cannot resolve on their own. This loose union should have little or no permanent bureocracy in order to both limit its power and potential for corruption. Representatives to the congress will not be employed full-time but will be chosen by the nations as they see fit on the rare occasions when the congress is called into session. Since a representative may well be employed for only one vote, he/she will not have to worry about the implications of that vote towards his reelection to the congress.

That's my view on galactic government anyway: leave most of it up to the individual nations, but have a mechanism for acting cooperatively if the need arises. I'm sure the plan could use a little reworking, but overall I don't think an overarching galactic government could function well.

srmeaney · 2005-05-25 01:30:33

I'm holding out for the first Constitution that says: You have the responsibility to do what is Ethical and do what is Right.
Article One
Each citizen has the responsibilty to do what is drast and what is shlemik.
No one has any idea what that means, and that's the point. Who defines?

No idea what it means?

Learn. It will be on the form you fill out for applying for citizenship in the Commonwealth of Space. You will be expected to live by those ideals until the day you die.

The responsibility of doing what is ethical and what is right is the foundation upon which all is built, least it fail and burn on re-entry.

clark · 2005-05-25 05:51:12

Is it ever ethical or right to steal?

Martian Republic · 2005-05-25 08:46:58

Is it ever ethical or right to steal?

Answer:

NO!

And

NO!

Stealing is only an option for those that want to control everything and want to have the wealth that other people create and they will steal if that the only way to get it. There generally prepared to kill people to get that wealth too. Beside just stealing it from them, they have a tendency to be murderers and even mass murderers too. So this justification of stealing set up a whole mindset of what OK and what you will accept as OK, just as long as your not on the receiving in end of that theft, but somebody else it.

Larry,

clark · 2005-05-25 11:34:54

So if your sick child requires a medicine to live that you cannot afford, it is unethical and never right to steal the medicine? In this instance, it would be more ethical and right to not steal, and therefore let your child die?

Ethics and "right" is context based, and the context is informed by social moores and values that shift with time and place. There is no hard and fast rule, much like the example I offer.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 11:58:25

So if your sick child requires a medicine to live that you cannot afford, it is unethical and never right to steal the medicine? In this instance, it would be more ethical and right to not steal, and therefore let your child die?

It would be unethical for him as a parent to not steal the medicine and let the child, totally dependent on his care, die unless those he stole it from alo needed it to live, in which case he's damned either way. If I had the medicine and didn't need it for others it would arguably be unethical for me to withhold it just because he couldn't pay. It would however be unethical for you to force me to give it to him.

But that's another topic.

clark · 2005-05-25 12:04:49

It would however be unethical for you to force me to give it to him.

Not really. At this point, we are arguing over which means are justified by the end. Once you accept that ends do justify the means, which particular means is irrelevant.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 12:23:14

Not really. At this point, we are arguing over which means are justified by the end. Once you accept that ends do justify the means, which particular means is irrelevant.

Not so. If he steals the medicine from me, and assuming I don't need it for anyone, he's justified in taking it from the greedy cruel bastard.

If you through force compel me to give it to him it's not justified. He stole out of need, you stole out of some arrogant sense of conscience. It's essentially a selfish motive.

Forcing someone to do the right thing is not a good deed. In fact it robs them of the opportunity to do good in the process of stealing from them.

clark · 2005-05-25 12:34:12

Forcing someone to do the right thing is not a good deed. In fact it robs them of the opportunity to do good in the process of stealing from them.

:laugh:

You don't believe that.

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 12:40:17

You don't believe that.

Not in all contexts, but it applies in this one. The "you have what he needs and you're going to give it to him or else" stance is unethical in my opinion.

clark · 2005-05-25 12:40:40

Each of us is forced to the right thing everyday, and in doing so, it presents us with the ability to evaluate the benefits of doing good.

It is the basis of law.

Law provides the guidelines, and appropriate punishments, that enable us to make rational determinations on what the group accepts as the right thing. Without it, well, anarchy, and the whim of individual selfish motive.

If I force a child to donate their blood, against the child’s wishes, because the blood will save another life- am I not being ethical? What have I taken from the child?

If I force a child to go to school against their wishes, or even to bed at an appointed hour?

Or, I force my dead beat brother in law to repay a loan to my parents?

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 12:49:14

Each of us is forced to the right thing everyday, and in doing so, it presents us with the ability to evaluate the benefits of doing good.
It is the basis of law.

The basis of law is forcing people not to do the wrong thing. There's a difference.

If I force a child to donate their blood, against the child’s wishes, because the blood will save another life- am I not being ethical? What have I taken from the child?

Both in a legal and practical sense the child is incapable of determining its own fate, making its own choices. As long as the child is unharmed, you're clear.

Or, I force my dead beat brother in law to repay a loan to my parents?

A willful agreement entered into of his own free will. Such things can ethically be enforced. Now if some outside party forced your parents to loan him the money, that would be unethical.

clark · 2005-05-25 12:57:33

Both in a legal and practical sense the child is incapable of determining its own fate, making its own choices. As long as the child is unharmed, you're clear.

A teenager? Capable of understanding the request, and making its own choice in the matter?

It wouldn’t be unethical. It isn’t unethical to force people to do what is right.

We force people to obey speed limits, and when they do not comply, they are punished for it.
We force men to register for national service, and when they do not comply, they are punished for it.
Yes, people can choose to not comply, yet the punishments are weighted to force people to make the “right” decision.

A willful agreement entered into of his own free will. Such things can ethically be enforced. Now if some outside party forced your parents to loan him the money, that would be unethical.

Okay, back to square one.

The draft is forced servitude. Is that ethical? No one enters the draft of their own free will (or compulsorily national service), yet you advocate it.

Are you advocating something unethical?

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 13:06:19

A teenager? Capable of understanding the request, and making its own choice in the matter?

So they think.

We force people to obey speed limits, and when they do not comply, they are punished for it.

Speed limits, when set lower than average traffic flow (as they almost always are) and used as a revenue source, are unethical.

The draft is forced servitude. Is that ethical? No one enters the draft of their own free will (or compulsorily national service), yet you advocate it.

Ah, but I don't. I advocate attaching voluntary service to certain benefits. Things which are desireable to some but by no means necessary. Still totally voluntary and one can lead a perfectly happy and productive life without participating.

Unless the country in which they reside, which has secured and provided for them is under assault, then refusal to defend it is in many ways unethical.

As you say, no hard and fast rules.

clark · 2005-05-25 13:11:03

Unless the country in which they reside, which has secured and provided for them is under assault, then refusal to defend it is in many ways unethical.

Which demonstrates my point, forcing people to act is not unethical. There can be a context where it is considered unethical along a spectrum, but if you can make an exception, or several exceptions, then it is merely an academic debate on when it is and is not appropriate, making it subjective and leading back to your original post. :;):

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-25 13:26:50

Ethics is always subjective. Unless of course the Almighty himself comes down and lays it out.

People keep telling me that already happened but I wasn't there to verify it.

And sometimes both parties can be unethical in their conduct. If I refuse to pay for a medical procedure to help, say, a heroin addict on the grounds that I think the effort is a waste; and you force me to pay at gunpoint, arguably we're both unethical. I think I'd be in the right, but not everyone agrees.

But then, their Kool-Aid tastes like communism.

Martian Republic · 2005-05-25 16:14:06

I have been reading the post of Clark and Cobra Commander.

Clark is pushing the idea that people who need something to live, have a higher claim to resource than the people who actually own those resources.

Cobra Commander is defending the rights of the individual to hoard resources by the people that own those resource and deny other people the right to life, because it mine and I'm going to give it to you even if you die.

So unless we establish a higher principle that take into account of people that have need to live and balance it off with individual rights to own, there would appear to be no answer to this problem.

My personal choice is to use the "GENERAL WELFARE" concept in the US Preamble to base what we should do. Any system that doesn't promote the General Welfare of all Americans is not a good system and needs to be either fix or overhauled so it does promote the General Welfare of all Americans. The General Welfare is not just defending the one in need either, it also is defending the rights of the one that has stuff too. There a delicate balance in there and we need to agree that that so or we whined up on either extremes with:

Clark defending right steal, because of needs that need to be mete for those people to live.

Cabra Commander defending mass murder, because this is mine and you can't have it. So now you can just go and die, because I'm not going to give it to you. That is where this that attitude will lead to, just look at Africa where tens of millions of people are being denied the right to life, because they are being denied the resources to live on.

So which choice do you defend?

Why do you defend that Choice?

Larry,

clark · 2005-05-25 17:14:00

I defend neither choice.

I merely wanted to point out that in some instances, it is ethical and right to steal. And in some instances, it is ethical and right to kill.

There is no absolute, yet your previous post (not this latest one) would seem to doubt that.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-05-20 17:56:27

Re: Galactic government

#2 2005-05-22 16:59:55

Re: Galactic government

#3 2005-05-22 18:35:07

Re: Galactic government

#4 2005-05-23 00:03:14

Re: Galactic government

#5 2005-05-23 17:58:29

Re: Galactic government

#6 2005-05-24 09:10:56

Re: Galactic government

#7 2005-05-24 09:12:01

Re: Galactic government

#8 2005-05-24 18:59:56

Re: Galactic government

#9 2005-05-25 01:30:33

Re: Galactic government

#10 2005-05-25 05:51:12

Re: Galactic government

#11 2005-05-25 08:46:58

Re: Galactic government

#12 2005-05-25 11:34:54

Re: Galactic government

#13 2005-05-25 11:58:25

Re: Galactic government

#14 2005-05-25 12:04:49

Re: Galactic government

#15 2005-05-25 12:23:14

Re: Galactic government

#16 2005-05-25 12:34:12

Re: Galactic government

#17 2005-05-25 12:40:17

Re: Galactic government

#18 2005-05-25 12:40:40

Re: Galactic government

#19 2005-05-25 12:49:14

Re: Galactic government

#20 2005-05-25 12:57:33

Re: Galactic government

#21 2005-05-25 13:06:19

Re: Galactic government

#22 2005-05-25 13:11:03

Re: Galactic government

#23 2005-05-25 13:26:50

Re: Galactic government

#24 2005-05-25 16:14:06

Re: Galactic government

#25 2005-05-25 17:14:00

Re: Galactic government

Board footer