Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-25 16:13:36

I've said it before, a little piece of paper means nothing. You need sometrhing to enforce that paper. The USA has allowed the UN to essentially become impotent, so who cares what the UN says at this point?

Now, in the future, the US may in fact use the UN or other treaties to justify going to war or creating claims on the moon; the US has the ability to claim that its entrepreneurial individuals are not part of the US nation state persay, whereas China making stakes on the moon is against the moon treaty because it is using its nation state, etc.

I still question the profitablity of space as a whole though.

Scott G. Beach · 2004-01-25 16:13:55

Cobra:

You asked, "So I suppose the government of Uzbekistan would be contributing the same financial resources as the United States? If so, where are they getting it and if not, the whole thing is welfare." It would be optimal if each nation contributes the same amount of money to support The Euthenia Project. However, if the U.S. paid 90 percent of the cost and only 10 of the first 100 colonists on Mars were Americans I would not be bothered in the least by that ratio. You can pejoratively label that ratio "welfare" if you want to but to me it does not matter at all. Ronald Reagan once said, "Much can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit." And I will second that by saying, "To Hell with 'the credit,' let's just get the job done!"

You wrote, "But your proposal creates a system that cannot be expanded or maintained which will have to be wholly discarded and replaced with something completely new." You are assuming way too much. You cannot possibly know what the first session of the Martian Parliament will or will not do. They may elect to keep the Provisional Government in place for several decades or they may immediately scrap it and adopt a new constitution. The U.S. operated under its Articles of Confederation for more than a decade before the U.S. Constitution was adopted. Martians might or might not rely on that "go slow" example.

Scott G. Beach · 2004-01-25 17:18:29

Mundaka:

You wrote, "I know YOU mean well, but your faith in the UN is misguided, and your logic will result in more misery than anything else."

You have incorrectly assumed that I have faith in the U.N. And please do not assume that I have faith in the "full faith and credit of the United States" because I do not. I do not own and do not want to own any U.S. Treasury bonds!

The U.S. is a party to the Outer Space Treaty. This simple fact is part of the legal landscape and I have done my best to deal with this fact. You can complain and complain and complain about the Outer Space Treaty and the U.N. but your complaining will not alter that Treaty or the bad habits of the U.N.

One of my political science professors told us that, "Politics is the art of the possible." I have analyzed the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty in order to find "the possible" and I have drafted documents that build on the posibilities that I have found in those treaties. Those treaties are not getting in my way. You can complain and complain and complain about those treaties but don't expect me to validate your complaints because those treaties are not getting in my way. I found a way through that legal thicket. Those treaties are NOT getting in my way!

Mundaka · 2004-01-26 03:41:19

Algol · 2004-01-26 06:51:58

Cobra:

To believe that large numbers of humans can live anywhere longterm without fighting is to ignore basic human nature and all of our history. It is unsubstantiated fantasy.

Europeans spent over a thousand years killing each other in ever more complex ways, infact we were still at it until 50 years ago. Yet to consider war within europe today is frankly impossible. Are we in europe ignoring our basic human nature? Is the peace in Europe unsubstantiated fantasy? Let me put it another way; Does New Jersey have anthing to fear from New York State? ???

Scott G. Beach · 2004-01-26 13:06:42

Mundaka:

You wrote, "The facts are that article 16 allows any signer to the Outer Space Treaty to withdraw from it with only a one year notice (and the US never signed the Moon Treaty at all.)" YOU can drive your Mack truck to Washington and spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars trying to convince legislators to vote to withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty. I am not going to waste my time and money on that activity.

You asked, "So what is your way, Scott?" My way is to not waste my time and money trying to abolish treaties that are not impediments to The Euthenia Project.

The Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty are not getting in my way. I am not going to waste a dime or a minute on an effort to abolish them. If you have a problem with those treaties then YOU can try to abolish them. If you ask me to help you do that I will tell you "NO, I have better things to do with my time and money. Those treaties are not getting in my way."

I am not going to debate the merits those treaties with you. Those treaties are not getting in my way. I found a way through that legal thicket and I am not going to go back into it. If you want to debate the merits of those treaties then you can start a "new topic" in this forum. You will find lots of people who agree with you. Maybe they will help you to abolish those treaties. But you should not expect me to participate in that discussion because the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty are not getting in my way.

Good luck with your new company.

Mundaka · 2004-01-26 13:51:26

Scott G. Beach · 2004-01-26 17:24:34

Mundaka:

You wrote that you disagree with my "utopian philosophy." Several other people have used the term "utopian" to describe my proposal to build a prototype Martian settlement.

In other sections of this forum I have written that I expect The City of Euthenia to have a police department and several jail cells. So I am definitely not trying to design a utopia. However, it would be preferable if those jail cells were empty almost all of the time.

One of these days I will add a page to my proposal and describe how Euthenia's governance system might be structured. I will be sure to mention the police and the jail. That should dispel any notion that I am proposing a utopia.

Cobra Commander · 2004-01-26 17:55:01

Cobra:
You asked, "So I suppose the government of Uzbekistan would be contributing the same financial resources as the United States? If so, where are they getting it and if not, the whole thing is welfare." It would be optimal if each nation contributes the same amount of money to support The Euthenia Project. However, if the U.S. paid 90 percent of the cost and only 10 of the first 100 colonists on Mars were Americans I would not be bothered in the least by that ratio. You can pejoratively label that ratio "welfare" if you want to but to me it does not matter at all. Ronald Reagan once said, "Much can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit." And I will second that by saying, "To Hell with 'the credit,' let's just get the job done!"

It's not about credit, but motivation. Specifically, where is it? Why go out of our way to include people who can't contribute when we could do it better and cheaper ourselves?

The U.S. operated under its Articles of Confederation for more than a decade before the U.S. Constitution was adopted. Martians might or might not rely on that "go slow" example.

Another flawed example. The Articles of Confederation were never meant as a temporary system. They were only replaced when their failure became impossible to ignore. Why follow this as an example?

You wrote, "The facts are that article 16 allows any signer to the Outer Space Treaty to withdraw from it with only a one year notice (and the US never signed the Moon Treaty at all.)" YOU can drive your Mack truck to Washington and spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars trying to convince legislators to vote to withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty. I am not going to waste my time and money on that activity.

I can sympathize with this view. While I would prefer to take the problem head-on and do it right, I can't blame you for wanting to avoid the hassle. I firmly believe that the Outer Space treaty must be discarded if Mars colonization is to take place, but that is a fight for another day.

Cobra:

To believe that large numbers of humans can live anywhere longterm without fighting is to ignore basic human nature and all of our history. It is unsubstantiated fantasy.

Europeans spent over a thousand years killing each other in ever more complex ways, infact we were still at it until 50 years ago. Yet to consider war within europe today is frankly impossible. Are we in europe ignoring our basic human nature? Is the peace in Europe unsubstantiated fantasy? Let me put it another way; Does New Jersey have anthing to fear from New York State?

Has warfare been abolished? Is the world at peace? Last time I looked the US, including troops from New Jersey and New York, was engaged in a war and Europe was having problems in its Balkan backyard. It's all about the size of the "tribe," who we identify as "us." If New York and New Jersey had a world to themselves, I would expect conflict to arise in time. As for Europe, the peace is a thin veneer. Time will tell how permanent it will be.

I'd bet on a united Europe myself, but only because there are other nations lurking nearby.

And finally, good luck Mundaka!

Scott G. Beach · 2004-01-26 23:25:25

Cobra:

I wrote a draft Martian constitution. That constitution provides a foundation for settlers to establish municipal governments and to adopt ordinances that allow the private ownership of land, homes, and businesses and to eventually convene a parliament. I do not want to go much further than that but if you believe that you know enough about political science to draft a constitution that can endure for 1,000 years then please do so. Post it here for us to see. If you think that some part of my draft constitution should be revised then please quote that part, list your objections, and suggest alternative wording.

My draft constitution does not provide for any officers. I believe that the Mars Society can decide how many officers the Provisional Government needs from time to time. My draft provides a foundation for subsequent steps and I cannot predict what those steps will be (my crystal ball is broken).

I set out to solve the problem of owning Mars and my draft constitution provides a solution to that problem. It goes two steps further than that by (1) providing a foundation for an international consortium to explore and settle Mars and (2) providing for the transfer of political power from Earth to Mars when the first Martian parliament is convened. I am leaving it up to the Martians to decide whether to have a Bill of Rights, whether to have a unicameral or bicameral or tricameral legislature, and whether to divide government power into three or four or five branches.

The United States has created a huge amount of ill will around the world by invading Iraq and, before that, by murdering foreign leaders when it was deemed expedient to do so. If you try to topple the Outer Space Treaty so that the United States can exert sovereignty over Mars then you will unnecessarily cause more and more resentment against the United States.

While I was traveling through Europe in the early 70s I was smashed in the back and knocked down onto my knees. The U.S. flag that I had sewn onto my backpack was ripped in half during that attack. I subsequently met other Americans who had removed the flags from their packs and one young American woman had sewn a Canadian flag onto her pack in order to avoid being attacked AGAIN!

I believe that it would be a serious mistake for the U.S. to abrogate the Outer Space Treaty because the rest of the world will just become more and more alienated with what they perceive to be our arrogance. It is unnecessary to stir up that kind of trouble because it is so very easy to sidestep the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty. The Moon Treaty is built on and is consistent with the Outer Space Treaty. The Moon Treaty contains an exception clause that allows the establishment of "legal norms" for Mars and other bodies. We should make use of that exception clause and we should invite all nations to participate in The Euthenia Project. Furthermore, we should make allowances for nations that cannot afford to pay a full share of the cost of that project, and it will not bother me if you want to call that "welfare." The Euthenia Project could have a more positive influence on international relations than the United Nations will ever have. The Euthenia Project will be worth every cent the U.S. spends on it.

Pendragon · 2004-01-27 08:21:03

Scott:
Just a few questions so I can understand your reasoning better. Who is the Mars Society (not that I am against it in any way) to set up the constitution for Mars? Under your plan (if I understand it correctly) you are looking for fairly even representation from all the cultures of Earth. Yet how many Uzbecks attend the annual meeting?

Mundaka:
I wish you well with you company. Do you have a name yet (that way I can cheer if I see them on the road)? Also, what's wrong with church socials? Get some good fried chicken, green beans, mashed potatoes and gravy, sweet tea (if you are in the south) and no gossip for an hour .

Gennaro · 2004-01-27 08:53:54

Hello, Scott G. Beach. I usually don't take part in political discussions, but since you use the rest of the world versus USA arguments against a US citizen, I as a European feel entitled to reply.

You say:

I wrote a draft Martian constitution. That constitution provides a foundation for settlers to establish municipal governments and to adopt ordinances that allow the private ownership of land, homes, and businesses and to eventually convene a parliament. ---
If you try to topple the Outer Space Treaty so that the United States can exert sovereignty over Mars then you will unnecessarily cause more and more resentment against the United States.

Here's the basic flaw. You don't seem to realize that there are more players in this game than your home country and why should We (since you're the emperor of Mars you can think of me as the aspiring Euro-Roman Emperor if you like ) be not willing to topple the Outer Space Treaty and why should We remain content in abiding by your constitutional paragraphs? European Mars colonies will be governed by European laws and interests thank you very much and we have no need for a Martian parliament.
The US might try to chew as much of Mars as they can but claiming the entire planet would be simply laughable in the eyes of the rest of us (Russia, Europe, China, Japan etc). I'd say you can lay claim on as much as you use and live upon. Yet what's worse is that this is an issue not addressed by the Outer Space Treaty!

The United States has created a huge amount of ill will around the world by invading Iraq and, before that, by murdering foreign leaders when it was deemed expedient to do so.

- Correct, but most of us also understand that the true America was not behind this. You are being top-ridden and dragged into wars for reasons unbeknowst to you.
What foreign leaders do you refer to by the way?

Naturally, we and others can co-operate for a manned mission to Mars, I'd love that, but what's the reason for the United States or anybody else to include countries that generally believe the Earth is flat and frankly couldn't care less anyhow?
The United States should not be bound by more obligations than for instance Russia, says me the European.
Bottom line: co-operation must be the free choice of the United States.

To say it brutally. The nations of the world can be divided into three categories: potential space travellers, muslim third world and remaining third world. Sometimes a country breaks out, but this can only be achieved by belief in itself. Nigeria is one such interesting example, I think I heard somewhere. A third world country with an actual space program!
The Outer Space Treaty more or less says everyone shall have everything for free. It's not right but above all it's a show stopper if you don't allow people to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

While I was traveling through Europe in the early 70s I was smashed in the back and knocked down onto my knees. The U.S. flag that I had sewn onto my backpack was ripped in half during that attack. I subsequently met other Americans who had removed the flags from their packs and one young American woman had sewn a Canadian flag onto her pack in order to avoid being attacked AGAIN!

I'm very much ashamed of the treatment you have experienced and sorry to say these leftist morons and their children are still rather plentiful and influential well beyond their actual numbers around here.
If it could be any consolation I can tell you that in reality their ideas and excesses are pretty unpopular among the general people. Problem is they more or less dominate the media (main propaganda apparatus) and thus give a false impression of European opinion. One have to understand that Europe is an extreme setting in some regards. In the USA it's obviously considered normal for school children to "greet the flag". Can you believe it? If you tried to suggest likewise in Swedish school for example you'd be regarded as insufficiently "democratic" and suspended from duty on the basis of "racism". In Germany you'd get arrested (no kidding).

I believe that it would be a serious mistake for the U.S. to abrogate the Outer Space Treaty because the rest of the world will just become more and more alienated with what they perceive to be our arrogance.

- Nonsense. It's pushing the kind of sentimental blackmail that the Outer Space Treaty represent on people, that nominally sovereign states interpret as New World Order imperialism, although they can only silently gnash their teeth.
The Outer Space Treaty is the worst kind of Kumbaya silliness and simply has to go.

Outer Space Treaty:
[http://www.greaterearth.org/laws/outers_t.htm]http://www.greaterearth.org/laws/outers_t.htm

clark · 2004-01-27 12:26:38

hehe...

Bill will not be surprised by this, but others may be...

Here's the basic flaw. You don't seem to realize that there are more players in this game than your home country and why should We (since you're the emperor of Mars you can think of me as the aspiring Euro-Roman Emperor if you like ) be not willing to topple the Outer Space Treaty and why should We remain content in abiding by your constitutional paragraphs? European Mars colonies will be governed by European laws and interests thank you very much and we have no need for a Martian parliament.
The US might try to chew as much of Mars as they can but claiming the entire planet would be simply laughable in the eyes of the rest of us (Russia, Europe, China, Japan etc). I'd say you can lay claim on as much as you use and live upon.

One nation need not bother trying to enforce it's claim upon any celestial body, that is, any nation that can reach out and claim something in the heavens. Currently, there are only three nations capable of placing humans in space. Two of which have the technical know-how and capability to sustain people in space on a continued basis (US and Russia). Yes, China is on the way, and yes, ESA is considering buying this latter ability from Russia.

There are a bunch of second-tier countries with developing space capabilities, but these are largely limited to unmanned and commercial sat/launch programs.

But none of that matters a single bit.

You see, to make a claim, and enforce it, one nation need only control access to LEO. America didn't need a bunch of settlers spread out over the entire Lousiana Purchase, did they? No. The US merely needed the ability to prevent others from getting to it. Control of the seas and land routes prevented any other from challenging the claim.

When, and if, the US claims a heavenly body as its own extraterrestrial, and soverign property, there will be nothing any government on Earth can do about it.

You challenge the claim, and you will find that your space rockets become space debri.

This isn't me beating my chest for the Americans, this is just the cold and bitter truth.

Gennaro · 2004-01-27 12:40:51

When, and if, the US claims a heavenly body as its own extraterrestrial, and soverign property, there will be nothing any government on Earth can do about it.
You challenge the claim, and you will find that your space rockets become space debri.
This isn't me beating my chest for the Americans, this is just the cold and bitter truth.

- Who says your rockets won't be the ones reduced to cosmic dust? See, making claims that can't be supported or taken seriously is dumb foreign policy.
Anyhow, a real Outer Space Treaty would begin by addressing potential political realities, not whether or not a guest is required to wipe his shoes when entering a space station in Mu Mu land.

clark · 2004-01-27 12:47:28

Who says your rockets won't be the ones reduced to cosmic dust? See, making claims that can't be supported or taken seriously is dumb foreign policy.

No other government on Earth has a stated policy to dominate, and control access to space. Only the US.

No other government on Earth is developing, testing, and producing a global missle defense system that can destroy ballistic objects traversing to, or from space. Only the US.

No other government on Earth is developing, testing, and producing nuclear reactors for use in space to power advanced laser systems. Only the US.

No other government on Earth spends as much on military space, or space in general compared to the US.

We just had the US president declare we will send humans to the moon by 2020. No other government on Earth could make such a bold declaration and be believed.

There's no need to make this personal, I don't make policy. I just elect the people who do.

Gennaro · 2004-01-27 14:23:23

Isn't it interesting how fast we managed to turn this discussion into a chauvinist infantile slug-fest?

I don't think we disagree at all. I'm just stretching the temporal perspective a little. The United States exert hegemonia and is unbelievably powerful in the world right now, but even then it wouldn't survive turning every major power against her.

When the present candidate countries are in, the EU will have a considerable larger population than the US and all the natural resources it needs.
The US will still be strong but whether it's alone in developing a missile defense system right now, will mean precious little in 30 years.

As for this president's declarations I honestly don't believe him.

clark · 2004-01-27 14:38:45

Isn't it interesting how fast we managed to turn this discussion turned into a chauvinist infantile slug-fest?

Sorry, Gennaro, what conversation are you having? I just wanted to be clear that my statements are not my opinions on the matter. Sometimes people get confused, and attribute a belief to me that I don't neccessarily share.

I'm just stretching the temporal perspective a little. The United States exert hegemonia and is unbelievably powerful in the world right now, but even then it wouldn't survive turning every major power against her.

Perhaps, but that's not the point. The US is furthering it's position, and preparing for the possibility where it might need to control access to space. Once that capability is achieved, it changes things. That's my point.

Signing the outerspace treaty was conveniant at the time becuase the US was big dog in space, and didn't want to go through the extra exspense of having to secure it. So, the US signs an international treaty, along with everyone else, declaring it a 'hands-off' zone. This disuaded other countries from going after space. This also meant the US didn't have to worry about space for a while.

Now though, once control of space access is achieved, the treaty is next to useless for the US. We don't need international treaties when we can impose our will, or threaten to. Yeah, it sounds like sabber rattiling, but it ain't coming from me. It's coming from our military and politcal leaders.

Now, countries faced with confronting the US, or giving in to her demands to recognize ownership of a celestial body, which one do you think is more likely? Note the recent wars and our definance of the UN to get your answer. We defied the UN, but you don't hear the EU calling for the US to be invaded, do you?

When the present candidate countries are in, the EU will have a considerable larger population than the US and all the natural resources it needs.

Okay, good for you guys! But the ESA is still a miniscule organization compared to DOD military space, or even NASA. ESA is new, and hasn't much experience in many of the technologies that are required to support humans in space.

Anyway, this is drifting, and I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat exchange.

clark · 2004-01-27 15:24:04

Not the biggest, just the most capable. :;):

And as for what usually happens to bullies... analogies have a time and place, and we may do ourselves a disservice in appreciating the situation if we try to reduce it to a school-yard tussle.

Bullies with thermonuclear weapons are a completely different beast than the ones we grew up with in school.

Gennaro · 2004-01-27 15:57:28

Nice to see you're as cheerful and light-hearted as always, clark.
:;):

Tantalizing tales you do convey.

Perhaps, but that's not the point. The US is furthering it's position, and preparing for the possibility where it might need to control access to space. Once that capability is achieved, it changes things.

Indeed. The US will lose every friend it's got.

Scott G. Beach · 2004-01-27 16:23:26

Pendragon:

You asked, "Who is the Mars Society (not that I am against it in any way) to set up the constitution for Mars?"

If the Mars Society adopted the Martian constitution that I drafted, and if the United Nations ratified that constitution, then the constitution would become effective and the Mars Society would, in essence, be acting as an agent of the U.N. However, from an operational perspective, the Mars Society would not be doing very much.

The Mars Society would provide for the incorporation of the Mars Development Bank. The Bank would be staffed by professionals and would have hundreds of millions of dollars flowing through it annually.

The Mars Society should appoint someone to be the Ambassador of the Provisional Government of Mars. It would make sense to appoint someone who lives in New York City, close to the U.N. headquarters. If any members of the U.N. staff or General Assembly had any questions about what the Provisional Government was or was not doing to promote the peaceful and orderly settlement of Mars then the Ambassador would be able to meet with those people and address their concerns.

The Ambassador should be given a stipend to cover cab fare and telephone expenses. The Ambassador should annually go to U.N. headquarters to deliver copies of the Bank's annual audit report. The Ambassador should do this and other things that assure the U.N. staff and General Assembly that moneys are being handled properly and professionally.

At the national level, members of the Mars Society would lobby their governments to support The Euthenia Project and to thereby become part of an international effort to establish permanent human settlements on Mars.

If the Mars Society was disinclined to do what I have outlined above then interested people might organize local and regional chapters of the Society of Sociocultural Systems Engineers. Those people could work together to persuade their governments to join The Euthenia Project. Draft Articles of Association for the Society of Sociocultural Systems Engineers are posted at [http://www.geocities.com/scott956282743/sosse.htm]http://www.geocities.com/scott956282743/sosse.htm

Bill White · 2004-01-27 16:44:03

You asked, "Who is the Mars Society (not that I am against it in any way) to set up the constitution for Mars?"

Couldn't we ask this same question about anybody who tried to set up a Martian government? This is why I find the political philosophy considerations of Mars settlement so fascinating. It really is a blank piece of paper. Rousseau asserts that civil society began when some joker had the audacity to build a fence and say "this land is mine" - - together with a combination of firepower and the gullibility of the other people. (Okay, Rousseau didn't use the word "joker" but the idea still stands)

Sooner or later, someone will have the audacity to travel to Mars and then say, "Hey! Humanity! This crater and the thousands of acres which surround it belong to us. Anybody got a problem with that?" Voila! Government on Mars shall be born.

clark is merely pointing out the US-ian firepower aspect of the equation. Yet firepower alone won't be enough, IMHO.

Three things will be needed to establish a claim to Mars.

Guns: clark has already pointed this one piece of the equation.

Money: Mars will need to be developed to be useful. A military base can deny others access yet how to you pay soldiers or space marines without economic productivity. As Trotsky said: "Tools belong to the man who can use them."

It was Trotsky, right? I may be wrong, yet I also believe most US-ians have NO idea who Trotsky even was.

Lawyers: Some smooth talking sweet wordsmiths will be needed to persuade the gullible that the Marsian land grab is really an exercise in truth, justice and the best interests of humanity. The rulers are always better off when the serfs are content.

Someday, Mars will be run by whoever best deploys the triple threat of lawyers, guns and money

= = =

To repeat: Rousseau asserts that civil society began when some joker had the audacity to build a fence and say "this land is mine" - - together with a combination of firepower and the gullibility of the other people.

IMHO this is a starting point that helped lead Proudhon to his more radical conclusion that All property is theft.

Cobra Commander · 2004-01-27 18:08:44

Someday, Mars will be run by whoever best deploys the triple threat of lawyers, guns and money

Well said, Bill, exactly. And one of my objections not only to Scott's proposal but to Martian "constitutions" in general is that they worry about the lawyers in the absence of guns and money. It can't be backed up, what's the point?

Basic principles are one thing, but detailed plans for the workings of Mars governments and social engineering schemes are a bit excessive at this stage.

Gennaro · 2004-01-27 18:19:25

"All property is theft"

Who cares... or should I ask, from whom is it stolen?

Ah, Mother Nature. As I said, who cares?

Marx would probably say that a fenced in piece of property is an element of an agricultural mode of production. A nomad or hunter gatherer have no use of laying claims on a piece of land (well, the latter actually has to some extent). But a farmer, who needs fields to grow food and grazeland to feed his livestock with all the pre-planning that goes into it, must make sure he can rule over the same piece of dirt tomorrow as today.
That's why a nomadic desert clan knows of no property but that which is raided and stolen, but a farmer invents the social contract to protect his life's work, his family and his kin.

I'm rather with Marx (updated) on this one.

A tribe that lay claims on land it doesn't need, cannot use and above all control, had better face the consequences or step back when faced with competition. A piece of paper is just a piece of paper, meaningful only to those who choose to respect it.
Instead of saying Mars is mine, I could just as well say I own the entire universe. Who's gonna believe me?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-01-25 16:13:36

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#27 2004-01-25 16:13:55

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#28 2004-01-25 17:18:29

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#29 2004-01-26 03:41:19

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#30 2004-01-26 06:51:58

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#31 2004-01-26 13:06:42

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#32 2004-01-26 13:51:26

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#33 2004-01-26 17:24:34

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#34 2004-01-26 17:55:01

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#35 2004-01-26 23:25:25

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#36 2004-01-27 08:21:03

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#37 2004-01-27 08:53:54

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#38 2004-01-27 12:26:38

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#39 2004-01-27 12:40:51

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#40 2004-01-27 12:47:28

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#41 2004-01-27 14:23:23

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#42 2004-01-27 14:38:45

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#43 2004-01-27 15:24:04

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#44 2004-01-27 15:57:28

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#45 2004-01-27 16:23:26

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#46 2004-01-27 16:44:03

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#47 2004-01-27 18:08:44

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

#48 2004-01-27 18:19:25

Re: Constitutional Amendment - The Management of Martian Civilizations

Board footer