Who Governs Mars? - Corporate Warlords vs. Commonwealth

BWhite · 2005-04-04 14:18:05

But for that to happen Bill it would require a population on Mars counted in the minimum of millions. For that to happen a nation would need a really tremendous space transportation system a decent amount of space knowledge and a lot of political and financial will. It also would likely not be alone on the planet.
Still for a country to deny a whole planet to other nations it would need to be in control of a real majority of that planet. And it would have to be a very large majority too. Still there is the ability to control certain areas of the solar system that give a form of bottleneck situation and a real benefit to the nation that controls it.
But I really do not believe that any country will have the power to control Mars and to actually completely dominate space to that degree.

The modern nation-state dates more or less from the Peace at Westphalia, as I recall. I do not believe the contemporary nation-state is the proper entity to undertake space settlement.

= = =

Subgroups of humanity formed around religion or culture might pay lip service to being multi-national and inclusive of all nations on Earth with the demographic reality being very different.

Edited By BWhite on 1112646020

Grypd · 2005-04-04 14:46:54

The modern nation-state dates more or less from the Peace at Westphalia, as I recall. I do not believe the contemporary nation-state is the proper entity to undertake space settlement.
= = =
Subgroups of humanity formed around religion or culture might pay lip service to being multi-national and inclusive of all nations on Earth with the demographic reality being very different.

There has been more to nationhood than just the westphalian peace treaty. What westphalian did was to really acknowledge the status quo. The holy Roman Empire still remained a country dominated by local princes and this did lead to its dissolvement simply as it had no real power central power. And that 30 years war for all its horror was a manipulated war with almost all other European powers playing and manipulating events, The tensions where there before its just the other countries used what is Germany to play it out.

What really described modern states is the loss of power of the local lords to a drive to a more centralised power and an eventual lead to democracy from monarchism and an enfranchisement of the populace.

And the main players in the thirty year wars where countries we can easily recognise in existence now, this was correct before the War and afterwards.

BWhite · 2005-04-04 15:07:34

The modern nation-state dates more or less from the Peace at Westphalia, as I recall. I do not believe the contemporary nation-state is the proper entity to undertake space settlement.
= = =
Subgroups of humanity formed around religion or culture might pay lip service to being multi-national and inclusive of all nations on Earth with the demographic reality being very different.
There has been more to nationhood than just the westphalian peace treaty. What westphalian did was to really acknowledge the status quo. The holy Roman Empire still remained a country dominated by local princes and this did lead to its dissolvement simply as it had no real power central power. And that 30 years war for all its horror was a manipulated war with almost all other European powers playing and manipulating events, The tensions where there before its just the other countries used what is Germany to play it out.
What really described modern states is the loss of power of the local lords to a drive to a more centralised power and an eventual lead to democracy from monarchism and an enfranchisement of the populace.
And the main players in the thirty year wars where countries we can easily recognise in existence now, this was correct before the War and afterwards.

I am no expert in European history yet I recall that Westphalia also codified the reality that the Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists had beaten one another into a bloody three way stalemate.

I daresay the Vatican was not pleased at ceding power to secular authorities. Today, a very real issue in Europe is whether Muslim immigrants will be more loyal to the flag or the faith.

Grypd · 2005-04-04 15:22:50

I am no expert in European history yet I recall that Westphalia also codified the reality that the Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists had beaten one another into a bloody three way stalemate.
I daresay the Vatican was not pleased at ceding power to secular authorities. Today, a very real issue in Europe is whether Muslim immigrants will be more loyal to the flag or the faith.

Do you really know what the Thirty years war was. It was a single family falling out. The trouble was was the family where the Hapsburgs and they provided the royal line for Germany, The Nertherlands, Austria and most importantly Spain. Spain at the time was the great waining power and it had been fighting in the Netherlands since it revolted.

Add in Religous intoleration, Feeble monarchs and greedy and treachorous local lords. France under a weak king but very powerful Cardinal feeling squeezed. A major new power forming in Scandinavia, Sweden and a whole crazed patchwork country still for all intents mostly filled with peasant serfs. Religion was involved but then again religion was allways involved until the twentieth century and you had a powder keg.

What the peace at westphalia really was was the peace of exhaustion and that was what all the sides where. It also provided a very well trained force of officers to really kick off the first stirrings of democracy over Monarchs in what was called the English civil war.

Grypd · 2005-04-04 15:38:21

The modern nation-state dates more or less from the Peace at Westphalia, as I recall. I do not believe the contemporary nation-state is the proper entity to undertake space settlement.
Subgroups of humanity formed around religion or culture might pay lip service to being multi-national and inclusive of all nations on Earth with the demographic reality being very different.
I daresay the Vatican was not pleased at ceding power to secular authorities. Today, a very real issue in Europe is whether Muslim immigrants will be more loyal to the flag or the faith.

I really went off topic sorry.

As far as I can see it we really have people nowadays who though they call themselves Scottish, American, English etc but are working for organisations that are truly multi national and quite willing to move countries if the conditions are not right.

I can truly see that soon we will have international companies that are so powerful that people will be citizens of the company.

For Mars we see that there is a lot less pressure on religous groups that there had been in what was the age of colonisation and also we still appear to have a high degree of nationalism but nothing like as strong as was present in the Early twentieth century. Also there is a sense also of international belonging to groups like the Mars society, Greenpeace etc.

So why is this important well we have to ask what will cause a group to decide to do what is a very powerful action and to seccede from its home nation/organisation. Only by having a sense of being Martians and to be under a feeling of schism from the home nations. This can be done by the home nations in some way ostracising there settlers or by policies that disenchant them. But also by a feeling of being seperated and it being a natural progression. There is also the possibility of a minority being able to manipulate the majority by the use of force.

Leifur · 2005-04-04 19:08:52

Leifur, if one segment or subset of humanity saw things this same way. they could get to Mars first, make babies and then decline to share any of Mars with the rest of us.

I doupt anyone can decline that, as each individual will have undisputable ownership over his own property, and if someone will bid enough in his property, he will sell, so the access to Mars will always be open. And in fact will the early Martians have the most to gain if more people will follow, as that will increase demand for land and other property and thus increase the value of their property.

But I really do not believe that any country will have the power to control Mars and to actually completely dominate space to that degree.

Actually I hope there will be one country that rules all of Mars, some kind of National Republic of Mars, that everyone can become citizen of, simply just by moving there, and where there will be total freedom.

Maybe my dream is utopian and childiss, but Mars should be a Free for all territory like the US of A wanted China to be when most of the worlds empires were merkantilistic and wanted to split China up between them. With single (basic)law and constitution, but to make everyone happy, the central government should have very, very limited powers, so every community will set their own laws about most things, except maybe property rights and other basic individualistic rights.

I have become fond of the idea of private creation and enforcement of law, that is all things should be done by private means by market forces, even laws, regulations and the enforcement of laws. It sounds with first glance rather absurd idea, but exactly that is the reason it should be done on Mars, do something different, do something new, as it will be a new place that can start fresh, why not do something fresh?

Actually it has been tried before, in my own country in a limited way, when it was settled around thousand years ago. And it worked for around 300 years, as the famous economist David Friedman argues for http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/ … .html]here in his book, The Machinery of Freedom, where he illustrates how such a society could work in the complexities of the modern age.

The Icelandic/private enforcement of law exsperience, with the added private creation of law like Friedman argues for, could work well for Mars, as there will be many different kinds of people from different parts of the world (like here were many different people from all over the Viking/Kelt world), that will have to coexist so there is no room for coercion. Coercion and disrespect to different cultures will only led to violence and even wars, Mars could not afford such, it nearly destroyed Europe like has been mentioned, although it ultimately allowed it to rise stronger than ever and rule the world. We certeinly would not like that either, having Mars recolonise the Earth after it has enhances its fighting abilites after centuries of interwarfare, so we will have to do things right when it comes to colonization of Mars.

Hopefully that time comes soon, and in fact I beliewe it will be sooner if we allow capitalism to thrive freely in space, with the abilities of creating property rights than if we are going to do it all though governments like we have been doing, it just does not happen fast or soon enough, most of the technology is allready known but yeat nothing happens. I beliewe that to be because there is not enough incentives for individuals and companies, big or small to go into space and make it part of the human world.

We will all gain if the Moon, Mars, even Venus and beyond will be settled thus becoming part of the human exsperience and the endevour of our species, we have great potential and the possibilities are at our fingertips, but we are allowing it to slip away because we are fighting over spoils, who should own what, or even if anyone should own anything, of things that are worthless to us as they are today, unreachable and uninhapited.

When the worth of some things is unmeasurable by the market, it is in all real sense worthless. Nobody can bid for a portion of the Moon or Mars today, so nobody can know if he can get enough returns for his investments in going there, so nothing ever happens, nobody goes there, because nobody can create ownership and property rights there. We need to change that, and that needs to change very soon. And we need to have a lot more babies

Mundaka · 2005-04-04 19:16:42

srmeaney · 2005-04-05 03:10:49

If we alocate a share of Mars to every person and value that share at fifty million billion, we would need rules. Therefor those who do not own a share can never set foot on Mars.

That certainly puts us in a situation. Would you sell your share If it ended your right to even set foot on Mars? With that wealth an individual could pay for the colonization of Mars by others just for the hell of it.

clark · 2005-04-05 06:40:46

fifty million billion: $50,000,000,000,000,000.00

Just wanted to see what it looked like. I think I have most of that in loose change in my couch (it's a BIG couch, very comfy).

I'll buy your share srmeaney, if it will shut you up.

Martian Republic · 2005-04-05 07:39:46

fifty million billion: $50,000,000,000,000,000.00
Just wanted to see what it looked like. I think I have most of that in loose change in my couch (it's a BIG couch, very comfy).
I'll buy your share srmeaney, if it will shut you up.

For fifty million billion: $50,000,000,000,000,000.00 I will sell my share of Mars to you too clark. Then I Change My name from the Martian Republic to something else, since I'm not going to be setting my foot on Mars either. I have the same opinion of srmeaney that you have of him too and wish he would shut up too. He is definitely annoying, that for sure.

Larry,

srmeaney · 2005-04-05 08:21:02

Another one who doesn't want an alternative point of view.

The reality is that even the Tin Can Habitat and Rover in the Garage is unsustainable at an economic level. It may be fine for the first hundred, But the price to do it for 10 million colonists outstrips the cost of the Version I have suggested.

So you go right ahead and spout the America alone, But you can support our plan policy. When you half of the world is dead, we will do it the proper way.

clark · 2005-04-05 08:33:38

So if I buy the share owned by Martian Republic, and a few others, does that mean I would have a greater share of Mars than someone who only had one, srmeaney?

Where is the equality in that? If not, what is the incentive for anyone to buy an extra share or sell their share, since everyone would own one share, and selling it means you can't go to Mars, and buying an extra share confers no benefit.

srmeaney · 2005-04-06 02:33:33

The others will burn me on this but There would need to be more than just the right to go. Extras shares equates to the right to have children on mars.

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-06 04:44:34

The others will burn me on this but There would need to be more than just the right to go. Extras shares equates to the right to have children on mars.

And if someone has children on Mars anyway? Take the kids away, send them to gulags on the Moon with the parents, just kill them?

Stupid scheme.

clark · 2005-04-06 05:21:34

Again, I ask you, where is the equality in your commonwealth if some may reproduce and others not, all based on their ability to aquire extra shares of Mars prior to going there?

This undermines the basis of your society.

Leifur · 2005-04-06 07:57:01

...There would need to be more than just the right to go. Extras shares equates to the right to have children on mars.

I am just not getting this Sr. Mean-ey. Why should the right to have children be something you have to purchase (otherwise than having to pay the costs of rising them) on Mars? That would only be reasonable if the number of children that could be raised vere somewhat limited and or there were a huge overpopulation crisis. But the situation will be exactly the opposite on Mars (actually it is for the whole human race, the overpopulation myth has been very dangerous, we need much more people), there (as here, at least in the western world) the most valuable resource will be human beeings, working hands essentially, so Mars will need as many people as possible. So limiting child bearing rights will not only be pointless, it will be counterproductive and contrary to the needs of Martian society.

The reality is that even the Tin Can Habitat and Rover in the Garage is unsustainable at an economic level. It may be fine for the first hundred, But the price to do it for 10 million colonists outstrips the cost of the Version I have suggested.

I am not sure I am getting what you are talking about, but an individualistic aproach to martian settlement and society will essentially be much more productive than collectivism (like you are promoting), so the cost will be returned many times over, though each and every individual will cost more in such a society. Weather we count that return as a pure economic returns, or in context of Mars beeing developed as a future home for a big portion of the human race, with terraforming, resource usage and human habitat creation. Essentially, the progress of martian terraforming and colonisation will go much faster, better, cheaper and be of more value to the human race if it is done by private means, with an individualistic, capitalistic approach.

So you go right ahead and spout the America alone, But you can support our plan policy. When you half of the world is dead, we will do it the proper way.

What are you talking about??? Sorry if I am a bit mean to you, but if you are talking about that the western world is draining the resources of the earth at to fast a rate, but the developin world not, you are mistaken. In fact the western world, with all its money can much better afford pollution curbing technologies and waste management, and even is beginning to see the value in recycling waste. The developing world is on the other hand to poor to do any of that, so instead of promoting growth in both the developing and developed world to spur innovation in pollution cleaning technology, we are hindering process and growth with all kinds of beurocratic hindering for bussinessess, one of the biggest, and most futile of wich is the Kyoto agreement.

But back to topic, we Sr. Mean-ey are maybe here on this board with similar, but opposite agendas. Although allways having had very much of interests about Mars and space colonisation, read through the whole of Kim Stanley´s Robinsson Red-Green-Blue Mars trilogy and all extra material I have managed to find, and much more in similar genre, I am learning engineering and am very interested in space structures and space faring I came here originally to promote an idea of mine.

It is essentially that Mars should become an utopian world where everything is perfect, based upon my sense of perfection (or close to it). And you Sr. Mean-ey, I seem to find is doing exactly the same, promoting your sense of utopian world on Mars, although it is by far not even close to what I have in mynd for example. And in fact, of the various posts and threads I have been reading here, most people are talking about Mars as their own utopian world with their own sense of how such an utopia will be. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it just seems for all of us like some kind of exscapeism from our own worlds, where our societies constantly seem to disapoint us in doing and having things in completely wrong direction and manner than we personally like things to be.

So we express our in fact dreams of how we would like our current societies to be, on the future society of Mars. Most likely noone of our dreams will be the one that will prevail on Mars, or in fact more likely some kind of mix of it all, wich like our current societies, respectetly, we or nobody will be completely happy with. But then again, that is the purpose of democracy, to nudge thing in the direction we want them to be in, and thus taking the route most people want it to go into, although noone will be completely happy.

Actually I beliewe that my sense of utopia could harbor most others utopian dreams within it, so everyone (or most) will be happy, but then again it is only my personal belief. But we can at least all agree that we beliewe in the progress and development of Mars and martian future society, hopefully.

clark · 2005-04-06 08:03:52

There is of course an opposing view Leifur... one I tend to follow (not to say that your or similar viewpoints are any less valid) which is not the Mars that i would have, but the Mars that will be.

It won't be sunshine and daffodils, nor will it be revolution and retribution.

I for one wonder what Mars will make us, not what we would make Mars. :;):

BWhite · 2005-04-06 09:29:03

I for one wonder what Mars will make us, not what we would make Mars. :;):

Exactly!

There is very little "out there" worth finding, except the finding out of what we can become. Which is priceless.

= = =

And if we are not self-surprised by what we become by going out there, we did it wrong.

Edited By BWhite on 1112801417

srmeaney · 2005-04-06 20:22:10

I'm not the one who feels the need for more than just an increasing share of mineral rights (and effectivly resource rights). If every one has an equal share and we buy and sell those shares, some will by the very nature of such a system of capitalism have more than others. That will by it's nature make it easier to support the next generation of Martians. Effectivly one share is required to qualify for Mars colonization. No share- cant go. No multiple shares-no support of the needs of the next generation.

clark · 2005-04-07 07:17:12

srmeaney, what you are seeing is a disconnect within your system.

You state that the commonwealth allows individuals to be free from the rule of others, yet at the very basis, this is untrue. If I have only one share, I wouldn't be free to have children, because those with more shares say I can't.

Grypd · 2005-04-07 07:41:53

This commonwealth seems like an attempt to create a marxist state with overtones of China. China also claims to be a Marxist/Socialist state, like the Commenwealth there is only alowed to be one party, Like China child births are strictly controlled..The only real difference is that China does not insist that all members of its population must be communist party members and China is willing to work with other countries to get things done (even if unwillingly )

srmeaney · 2005-04-07 08:45:52

China is not a communist state. China is a dictatorship run by a beauracracy with millitary support. Real communism which you are so fond of Accusing the Commonwealth of is in fact a governmentless state where everyone governs themselves and has an equal share and the right to contribute and pretty much work together. Conceivably if Boeing was owned by all its workers (and only it's workers), that would be Communism. You should recognise it, It was pushed forward as the way things work on Mars in the Kim Stanley Robinson Mars series as the future of industry and corporations.

Funny that, Communism being the future of all Capitalism. Probably wont be too popular with the directors on fifty million a year who bankrupt the company and dont produce anything, but it should be real popular with the working stiffs who are being paid less than the value of their contribution.

clark · 2005-04-07 12:30:37

The KSR trilogy was pretty, but a lot of it was stupid. The social creation presented in that series is a fantasy, not something to hold up as evidence of the coming revolution of the prolitariat over their oppresors, and the ushering in of a new age of prosperity and equality.

The world you have created so far is one where very few individuals can afford the neccessary funds to purchase an extra share of Mars to gurantee the right to have children, therfore, those who do go, and do not have the extra share, become workers for those who can have children. Congratulations, people go to Mars to support the rich folk's kids. Beautiful. :laugh:

srmeaney · 2005-04-07 19:17:12

That is why the only way is Space Commonwealth. The state will have to retain total ownership of the mineral rights as collateral to borrow the funds needed just to pay for colonization and terraforming. That means a population restriction of ten million Colonists. All who will work for the state for the rest of their lives. Of course, they will be happy to have a job. On earth, unemployment will have reached three billion.

clark · 2005-04-09 08:30:56

For some odd reason, I enjoy this- but then, I like to beat my head against walls for the dull thudding sound.

Okay, so 3 billion people are unemployed on Earth, and previously you have stated that 3 billion people will die in some Earth war. So, effectively, you are either dead or jobless, on Earth, in the future.

And in this economic reality, colonization of Mars is a possibility?

We are capable of considering the colonization of Mars only because the Earth is stable enough, and advanced enough, and has enough extra resources, to make the idea plausible.

You kill half the population, and make the other half unemployed, there ain't gunna be no one to build the stuff you need to get to Mars, or help in the first years of setting it up. Not to mention that the mineral resources on Mars will have no value since Earth will be the primary market, but since everyone is dead or without a job, no one will buy.

You can have your common wealth fantasy, but it makes no sense in any kind of plausible way.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-04-04 14:18:05

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

#102 2005-04-04 14:46:54

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

#103 2005-04-04 15:07:34

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

#104 2005-04-04 15:22:50

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

#105 2005-04-04 15:38:21

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

#106 2005-04-04 19:08:52

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

#107 2005-04-04 19:16:42

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

#108 2005-04-05 03:10:49

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

#109 2005-04-05 06:40:46

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

#110 2005-04-05 07:39:46

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

#111 2005-04-05 08:21:02

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

#112 2005-04-05 08:33:38

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

#113 2005-04-06 02:33:33

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

#114 2005-04-06 04:44:34

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

#115 2005-04-06 05:21:34

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

#116 2005-04-06 07:57:01

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

#117 2005-04-06 08:03:52

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

#118 2005-04-06 09:29:03

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

#119 2005-04-06 20:22:10

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

#120 2005-04-07 07:17:12

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

#121 2005-04-07 07:41:53

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

#122 2005-04-07 08:45:52

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

#123 2005-04-07 12:30:37

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

#124 2005-04-07 19:17:12

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

#125 2005-04-09 08:30:56

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

Board footer