Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

srmeaney · 2005-03-22 16:24:38

Ten seconds off the ladder of the Mars One lander, Lead Astronaut, Phillip Stren Points to the horizon and screams "Oh god, Its aliens with rayguns!" at which the transmission cuts out. Only later do we find the letters declaring Mars Independent.

srmeaney · 2005-03-22 16:29:35

Mars as an Independent World with a killer national Debt.

Is citizenship open to every terrorist who can 'jack a ride' or just those who pass the rigours of Astronaut Training?

If the Government decides to send food based on the repayment of Debt, rather than allow food self sufficiency, would you be able to survive your declaration of independence?

"Apparently some colonists no longer want to live under my guidance."

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-22 18:46:51

Is citizenship open to every terrorist who can 'jack a ride' or just those who pass the rigours of Astronaut Training?

Citizenship in what is the first question. Anyone who can travel in large enough groups to sustain themselves can declare themselves independent and citizens of whatever they choose. Conversely any established colony can exclude anyone they damn well please.

If the Government decides to send food based on the repayment of Debt, rather than allow food self sufficiency, would you be able to survive your declaration of independence?

Were I on Mars and the government decided not to "allow" food self-sufficiency I would promptly take steps to do so anyway to the exclusion of whatever nonsense they'd prefer I be doing.

"Apparently some colonists no longer want to live under my guidance."

Happens to the best of us. Space is big, there's plenty of room for everyone.

Grypd · 2005-03-23 10:32:11

I have to ask but what happens to the Commonwealth should a terran Nation state frankly ignores that the commonwealth owns everything and remains doing its own exploration and possible colonisation. What if this Nationstate was never a member of the cooalition that forms the Commonwealth and has refused to ever join up. Prefering its own way of doing things.

Then without using military force or at least threats the commonwealth will become a very weak and inefectual organisation. And there are countries that will not sign up for anything like a commonwealth and there citizens will not be bound in supplieing the martian settlers who want there freedom.

Palomar · 2005-03-23 10:44:10

*Frankly I think a lot of -- if not most or all -- discussions relating to the political future of Mars is pointless. We're nowhere near to a manned mission, and with "Moon First" likely none of us will see it in our lifetimes.

I've been dismayed and disappointed at the number of people who come to this forum, advocating the same old oppression and power-over as before. And likely the biggest proponents of it are those nurturing dreams of being Dictator, who in real life are tortured wannabe anonyms.

Cart ahead of the horse, regardless.

Make the future a better place for as many people as possible or stay on Earth.

That's my opinion.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-03-23 10:49:44

*Oh forget it. I didn't come to New Mars to discuss this sort of stuff anyway.

If anyone's interested in what I posted here previously (political), drop me a Message and I'll send the text to you.

Sorry.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2005-03-23 14:24:09

Make the future a better place for as many people as possible or stay on Earth.
That's my opinion.
--Cindy

Hear, hear!

In my opinion, total plans like these are also pointless because when/if Mars settlement ever gets off the ground it will simply be a matter of political entities on Earth staking out the area they settle. Mars will never have a single government, independent or not, but several administrations, linked to their country of origin. 19th century imperialism (but without the oppressed) is a better metaphor than either Columbus or Charles Fourier.

And that's how it ought to be.

srmeaney · 2005-03-23 19:23:34

"Correct me if I missed something here, but if the Commonwealth can send people to live in holes on the Moon, people who presumably don't want to go, then they must somehow be compelled to go, implying a mechanism for not only formulating law but enforcing it. Does that not constitute hierarchy?"-cc

It is an act of collective reasoning. you pose a threat to everyone therefore for the good of all, you get to live in isolation, forever. If you didn't want to go, you would not have attacked the right of others to freedom from your tyranny. In your case you blew a hole in the garden wall when you simply had to enter at the gate. That told everyone you were a wrecker of other peoples dreams. You perpetrated treason. As it is not treason that carries the death sentace but rather the resisting of arrest under charge of treason, we force you out.

Only one law. If you attack the right of others to an equal share of the benifits and responsibilities of citizenship, you are attacking the Commonwealth. If you are attacking the Commonwealth, you are guilty of Treason. The penalty for Treason is exclusion. Because the whole planet mars is property of the Commonwealth (considered so because there are colonsists yet to come and not just those who are already there) we act against you because we are acting to protect the rights of those yet to come.

"Having been offered a second chance at paradise, you betray it all by ransacking the orchard and calling those who force you out, a tyranny."-srm

"I have to ask but what happens to the Commonwealth should a terran Nation state frankly ignores that the commonwealth owns everything and remains doing its own exploration and possible colonisation."-g

Then the Commonwealth would act to oppose the actions of said nation state.
1. We would seek regress of our greivances with the U.N. The Security council members would be required to act against the offender.
2. We would require economic, social, and military isolation of the agressor by all other U.N. member nations.
3. If the first two acts failed to stop the offender, we would orbit a bose-einstein condensate above the offending nation and collapse all quantum activity so that no vessel could pass through it or be launced into space from that nation without being destroyed on contact.

"What if this Nationstate was never a member of the cooalition that forms the Commonwealth and has refused to ever join up. Prefering its own way of doing things."-g

The Commonwealth is not a coalition of Nations. it is a coalition of individuals acting in common purpose under rules of ethical and legal conduct. A nation of zero citizens which is specificly designed with a mandate to take as citizens those who would go to space to stay beyond the Earth. A nation that would finance that path with a loan from Earth. A loan that would be used to bring economic growth and wellbeing to even the poorest of Earth nations.

"I've been dismayed and disappointed at the number of people who come to this forum, advocating the same old oppression and power-over as before."-e_I_i

Pay more attention. Beyond the responsibility of the individual citizen to act to preserve the rights of others to freedom from tyranny, inequality, ect. I am yet to advocate anything of the sort. The reason for opposing any other access by any other group is that all the resources are spoken for by those citizens yet to come. To become a citizen you must recognise the right of all to an equal share of benifits and responsibilities that come with such Citizenship.

Basiclly, Colonization of Commonwealth Territory (Space) would involve the sending of one hundred citizens to Mars every two years and one hundred per year to live on an artificial colony bound for whereever, each of which will have it's own task. You need to understand that there are no amount of resources that we could pour into a space program that would allow that population limit to be exceeded. While resources could be launched daily, People would be going in the shortest time-window. Sure we could build Thousand Passenger Cruise ships with nuclear propulsion and orbital lift tugs with antigravity engines, but that would be a hundred years away just for the first ship.

"Mars will never have a single government, independent or not, but several administrations, linked to their country of origin."-g

Not if colonization and cooperation is beyond the abilities of any individual state. Why would you as a citizen responsible for governing yourself surrender that to be governed by others.

You have the right to an equal share of the responsibilities and the benefits of citizenship.

This is an absolute right from which extends the frail ethics of your own interpretations of human rights and Democracy. The penalty for violating this right is expulsion and isolation from all others.

There isn't anything difficult about it.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-24 06:41:47

As purely hypothetical debates in which I'm cast as the villain seem to pass the time, here goes.

It is an act of collective reasoning. you pose a threat to everyone therefore for the good of all, you get to live in isolation, forever. If you didn't want to go, you would not have attacked the right of others to freedom from your tyranny.

How am I posing a threat? Should I seek to leave my nation and live on Mars free of its restrictions no one is yet harmed. Now say a few dozen like-minded people want to go with me and live under a set of mutually agreed upon laws and principles. We go, we set up on some unoccupied land and mind our business. No tyranny, no attacks on the rights and freedom of others.

With the exception of an overbearing Commonwealth government harassing us at every opportunity.

That told everyone you were a wrecker of other peoples dreams.

When one's dream is unchecked galactic domination.

Only one law. If you attack the right of others to an equal share of the benifits and responsibilities of citizenship, you are attacking the Commonwealth.

I've done no such thing.

Now, moving on to the obvious problem of coercing nations to be part of this adventure.

Then the Commonwealth would act to oppose the actions of said nation state.
1. We would seek regress of our greivances with the U.N. The Security council members would be required to act against the offender.

Okay, so nothing happens. Next move.

2. We would require economic, social, and military isolation of the agressor by all other U.N. member nations.

Require you say? How would you compel this? Sure the UN is a corrupt and power-hungry organization which might be all over an ill-conceived scheme such as this but their power depends on their member states acting. What if they don't?

3. If the first two acts failed to stop the offender, we would orbit a bose-einstein condensate above the offending nation and collapse all quantum activity so that no vessel could pass through it or be launced into space from that nation without being destroyed on contact.

Oh, of course. And while we're pulling new technologies out of our asses I'll send a group of genetically modified flying super monkeys up there with quantum scissors to cut a big hole in it.

The Commonwealth is not a coalition of Nations. it is a coalition of individuals acting in common purpose under rules of ethical and legal conduct.

Rules defined by a coalition of elitists who think they not only know what's best for all of us but believe they own the universe.

A nation that would finance that path with a loan from Earth. A loan that would be used to bring economic growth and wellbeing to even the poorest of Earth nations.

This is the best part, not only must every nation join this Commonwealth under penalty of embargo, military force or a plague of magical super-tech but they also have to pay for it all! :laugh:
Do what I say or I'll shoot ya! As soon as you give me money to buy a gun. :laugh:

Why would you as a citizen responsible for governing yourself surrender that to be governed by others.

My point exactly. :;):

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1111671080

Gennaro · 2005-03-24 07:11:31

Isn't it amusing?

How people with grand plans like these, be them neocommie utopians or free market evangelicals, always seem to reason that at least their solution is freed from the oppression of "nation states", while in reality nations are one of the few things for which ordinary people will act voluntarily out of love or duty.

BWhite · 2005-03-24 07:23:54

Mars as an Independent World with a killer national Debt.

Declare independence. Enact bankruptcy laws. Debt discharged. Build space navy. End of problem.

= ==

Oooops. Build space navy should be item #1

BWhite · 2005-03-24 07:26:55

Isn't it amusing?
How people with grand plans like these, be them neocommie utopians or free market evangelicals, always seem to reason that at least their solution is freed from the oppression of "nation states", while in reality nations are one of the few things for which ordinary people will act voluntarily out of love or duty.

Nation states are also essential to marshall the resources needed to accomplish such plans. Or perhaps large churches.

Some might prefer the nation-state; and

Many of these utopian planners actually intend to found a new Church, if you cut through the hyperbole.

= = =

Edit to addd: Yup. Its amusing.

Edited By BWhite on 1111670867

Palomar · 2005-03-24 07:29:25

Isn't it amusing?
How people with grand plans like these, be them neocommie utopians or free market evangelicals, always seem to reason that at least their solution is freed from the oppression of "nation states", while in reality nations are one of the few things for which ordinary people will act voluntarily out of love or duty.

*It's beyond me how anyone can get so serious about politics as pertains to a completely hypothetical civilization which doesn't yet exist, and may not for centuries to come.

There is no perfect political model, and even the Western one is definitely show major cracks in its armor.

Whatever. I guess theorizing and speculating (and advocating) to The Nth Degree the political system(s) of a civilization which doesn't exist yet is appealing to some. To each their own. I find it a waste of time, generally. Interesting to speculate on a bit (JUST a bit...and not for hours and hours on end). But to be honest? I've not yet seen "A Plan" I'd endorse.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2005-03-24 07:35:30

Not if colonization and cooperation is beyond the abilities of any individual state.

It isn't. The US could do this on their own if they wanted to. The day they get their tumbs out of their asses, more power to them.
European nations must possibly co-operate to pull it off, but I have no problems with that, because basically we share more than divide us. It's just a matter of centralizing an autonomous executive, and if Norway for some reason refuses to share in the glory, well, I won't force them to contribute.

Why would you as a citizen responsible for governing yourself surrender that to be governed by others.

Ever heard of the social contract? Yep, that's the reason why. The state offers protection. As individuals, we are not responsible for anything. Responsibilities are the consequences of other people.

This is an absolute right from which extends the frail ethics of your own interpretations of human rights and Democracy. The penalty for violating this right is expulsion and isolation from all others.

Frankly, I don't care a penny either for your "human rights" or so-called "democracy". I care for the civil rights of my citizens and wise government. Besides, I want my own European eagles painted on the spaceship fuselage, not the tasteless symbol of some global democratic tyranny, thank you.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-24 07:42:53

*It's beyond me how anyone can get so serious about politics as pertains to a completely hypothetical civilization which doesn't yet exist, and may not for centuries to come.

It's the intellectual equivalent of Twinkies. Little nutritional value, but occasionally worth the indulgence.

Besides, political discussion divorced from present reality is a good way to deal with certain issues without all the baggage they have in a contemporary context.

Besides, I want my own European eagles painted on the spaceship fuselage, not the tasteless symbol of some global democratic tyranny, thank you.

I'm putting fasces on mine.
And big shark mouths.

Gennaro · 2005-03-24 07:46:17

I'm putting fasces on mine.
And big shark mouths.

Wow.

I'm thinking imperial silver eagles holding fasci in their claws. What do you think?

Palomar · 2005-03-24 07:46:49

Besides, I want my own European eagles painted on the spaceship fuselage, not the tasteless symbol of some global democratic tyranny, thank you.
I'm putting fasces on mine.
And big shark mouths.

*Hmmmm...that could become another thread. What symbol to put on a spaceship's fuselage. I'll have to think about what symbol I'd put on mine.

--Cindy

P.S.: What the heck is "fasces"? Don't worry, I'll Google...

...okay, Googled. I'll put the outline of the constellation Scorpius on mine. With a big garnet stone representing Antares. :laugh:

srmeaney · 2005-03-24 09:57:03

1. You still think in terms of Irresponsibility. The individual must ultimatly govern themselves. That is real freedom.

2. What democracy? I'm pushing rule of the individual by the individual. Not government by me of you.

3. It would appear we must wean the earthlings off government of the many by the few. All the super powers have that system. look at the way things are going for their citizens. Only the Communist one has optimal employment.

4. If I was interested in starting a religion, I wouldn't be in Canada preaching to the masses that half a million dead non christians from Tsunami was proof of the righteousness of christianity (It's surprising what the hell gets pushed in church these days. My family was most offended by such an outcome to their christmas holiday. If I had been there, I would have impaled the swine on his steeple cross), I'd be requiring my followers to have their own frog breeding pond and repel all the Government and corporate thugs.

5. As to the use of super weapons to defend Commonwealth control of Space, It was that or Nuclear drive starships with Mass drivers and drone aerospace fighters.

"Bring the Commonwealth Carrier SYDNEY out of lunar eclipse. Charge the Mass drivers for orbital bombardment. Ready the QANTAS Aerospace Drones for a bombing run. We will teach those Montanans not to insult the Commonwealth Protectorate of Canada. I don't care if they do speak French."

6. With the support of the Super powers looking to do the big job and yet divest themselves of the financial burden, It could be the only game in town.

7. We could even start next January with unmanned launches. It would take ten years to bring all the launch requirements on line. The end result is a thousand years of heavy lift at the rate of a thousand tonne of cargo a day. A small portion of which would be people.

8. Considering we could build our colony in the Crater of Olympus Mons and Mine out a self sustained city capable of housing and feeding a million colonists most of whom would be employed in mining the mountain. Can you say 'Free City of Olympus' ten times fast?

The only thing holding us back would be our ability to send people. We definetly need cruise ship size passenger transports.

Palomar · 2005-03-24 10:09:06

As purely hypothetical debates in which I'm cast as the villain seem to pass the time, here goes.
It is an act of collective reasoning. you pose a threat to everyone therefore for the good of all, you get to live in isolation, forever. If you didn't want to go, you would not have attacked the right of others to freedom from your tyranny.
How am I posing a threat? Should I seek to leave my nation and live on Mars free of its restrictions no one is yet harmed. Now say a few dozen like-minded people want to go with me and live under a set of mutually agreed upon laws and principles. We go, we set up on some unoccupied land and mind our business. No tyranny, no attacks on the rights and freedom of others.
With the exception of an overbearing Commonwealth government harassing us at every opportunity.
That told everyone you were a wrecker of other peoples dreams.
When one's dream is unchecked galactic domination.
Only one law. If you attack the right of others to an equal share of the benifits and responsibilities of citizenship, you are attacking the Commonwealth.
I've done no such thing.
Now, moving on to the obvious problem of coercing nations to be part of this adventure.
Then the Commonwealth would act to oppose the actions of said nation state.
1. We would seek regress of our greivances with the U.N. The Security council members would be required to act against the offender.
Okay, so nothing happens. Next move.
2. We would require economic, social, and military isolation of the agressor by all other U.N. member nations.
Require you say? How would you compel this? Sure the UN is a corrupt and power-hungry organization which might be all over an ill-conceived scheme such as this but their power depends on their member states acting. What if they don't?
3. If the first two acts failed to stop the offender, we would orbit a bose-einstein condensate above the offending nation and collapse all quantum activity so that no vessel could pass through it or be launced into space from that nation without being destroyed on contact.
Oh, of course. And while we're pulling new technologies out of our asses I'll send a group of genetically modified flying super monkeys up there with quantum scissors to cut a big hole in it.
The Commonwealth is not a coalition of Nations. it is a coalition of individuals acting in common purpose under rules of ethical and legal conduct.
Rules defined by a coalition of elitists who think they not only know what's best for all of us but believe they own the universe.
A nation that would finance that path with a loan from Earth. A loan that would be used to bring economic growth and wellbeing to even the poorest of Earth nations.
This is the best part, not only must every nation join this Commonwealth under penalty of embargo, military force or a plague of magical super-tech but they also have to pay for it all! :laugh:
Do what I say or I'll shoot ya! As soon as you give me money to buy a gun. :laugh:
Why would you as a citizen responsible for governing yourself surrender that to be governed by others.
My point exactly. :;):

*Bravo, Cobra Commander!

:laugh:

I very much enjoyed your responses.

Especially this:

Rules defined by a coalition of elitists who think they not only know what's best for all of us but believe they own the universe.

Yep. Some folks need to take a holiday or get out more often.

Srmeaney, you're not for the greater freedom of the individual. You're for the *enslavement* of the individual by a power-mad, voracious, rabid government with a God complex.

My opinion.

--Cindy

P.S.:

This is the best part, not only must every nation join this Commonwealth under penalty of embargo, military force or a plague of magical super-tech but they also have to pay for it all!
Do what I say or I'll shoot ya! As soon as you give me money to buy a gun.

LOL!

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-24 10:12:56

EDIT::

*Bravo, Cobra Commander!

<bows>
END EDIT:

While some of the points were addressed to Gennaro, I'll follow what seems to be the theme of this thread and presume to speak for others.

1. You still think in terms of Irresponsibility. The individual must ultimatly govern themselves. That is real freedom.

And how do you reconcile "governing oneself" with submitting to this Commonwealth? It's an overarching government interfering with self-government.

2. What democracy? I'm pushing rule of the individual by the individual. Not government by me of you.

Again, provided they jump through the hoops held up by this Commonwealth. If a group of people go to Mars and they don't bother the other colonies what does it matter? Why must they be made to submit?

3. It would appear we must wean the earthlings off government of the many by the few. All the super powers have that system. look at the way things are going for their citizens. Only the Communist one has optimal employment.

Weaning off government . . . by creating a huge new government. Like breaking a heroine addiction by forcing the junkie to OD.

Skipping no. 4, not really relevant except to ask how this Commonwealth would respond to religious colonists.

5. As to the use of super weapons to defend Commonwealth control of Space, It was that or Nuclear drive starships with Mass drivers and drone aerospace fighters.

Or option three, leave them be. This apparent need to conquer any who refuse to kneel draws the motives behind this scheme into question. It's almost evangelical in its zeal to convert. And here come the inquisitors. . .

The flying monkeys are taking up positions to defend Montana from orbital bombardment.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1111680973

Palomar · 2005-03-24 10:16:43

It's almost evangelical in its zeal to convert. And here come the inquisitors. . .
The flying monkeys are taking up positions to defend Montana from orbital bombardment.

:laugh: :laugh:

Cobra, you're too much! Teehee...

--Cindy

srmeaney · 2005-03-24 10:45:59

Why do you insist that being forced to take responsibility for your own actions is tyranny? Are you afraid of the prospect of no Government? Or is it the need to pass Astronaut Training that drives you mad?

srmeaney · 2005-03-24 10:59:06

As Warlord, I'll bribe you. You can have your own Bar near the Olympus Space port. Then you can duke it out with the New Martian Mob over Gambling and Casino Rights.

"I think we've gotten to the point in society where you kind of have to prove your value. We're getting to the point where it's being said that it's okay to dispose of you." ~Patricia Heaton

Too late. Already in the works. I see 'abandoned on an Ice flow at the age of fifty' in everyone's future.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-24 11:00:59

Why do you insist that being forced to take responsibility for your own actions is tyranny?

What I have a problem with is granting someone else the power to arbitrarily decide whether or not I've taken responsibility and what to do about it should my actions not meet their ideas of what's proper. The scheme you propose takes away personal responsibility and replaces it with an ill-defined dogma that seems increasingly formulated to further nefarious ends.

Or is it the need to pass Astronaut Training that drives you mad?

No, not at all. Provided that training is actually astronaut training as opposed to a cover for something else. Given the tendency to redefine words displayed previously, I question it.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-24 11:05:38

As Warlord, I'll bribe you. You can have your own Bar near the Olympus Space port. Then you can duke it out with the New Martian Mob over Gambling and Casino Rights.

I thought you said Mars wouldn't have a "money economy"? What do you gamble with?

And wouldn't the Mob qualify as a "terrorist" element, defined apparently as anyone not submitting fully to the decree of the Communi-- er, Commonwealth? Funny how they haven't been sent to Lunar gulags yet, given that we apparently don't have a huge burden of proof in such "terrorist" cases under what passes for Commonwealth law.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-03-22 16:24:38

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#27 2005-03-22 16:29:35

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#28 2005-03-22 18:46:51

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#29 2005-03-23 10:32:11

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#30 2005-03-23 10:44:10

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#31 2005-03-23 10:49:44

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#32 2005-03-23 14:24:09

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#33 2005-03-23 19:23:34

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#34 2005-03-24 06:41:47

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#35 2005-03-24 07:11:31

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#36 2005-03-24 07:23:54

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#37 2005-03-24 07:26:55

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#38 2005-03-24 07:29:25

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#39 2005-03-24 07:35:30

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#40 2005-03-24 07:42:53

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#41 2005-03-24 07:46:17

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#42 2005-03-24 07:46:49

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#43 2005-03-24 09:57:03

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#44 2005-03-24 10:09:06

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#45 2005-03-24 10:12:56

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#46 2005-03-24 10:16:43

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#47 2005-03-24 10:45:59

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#48 2005-03-24 10:59:06

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#49 2005-03-24 11:00:59

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

#50 2005-03-24 11:05:38

Re: Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

Board footer