Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

EarthWolf · 2004-07-20 18:46:02

Hello,

Here's what I hope is an interesting question. Should Martian colonies be ruled directly from Earth and not allowed any self-rule or should any Mars colony be governed with an eye toward eventual independence? Personally, I prefer the eventual independence of the Martian colonies.

Cordially,

EarthWolf

Palomar · 2004-07-20 20:15:24

*Direct rule.

The major reason for the split of the American Colonies from England was due to members of Parliament and the ruling class being absolutely clueless about life on the frontier, the differences weather, flora and fauna, and most importantly the lapses in time between a problem being posed and a reply returning to the Colonies. Of course it won't take months to get messages between Earth and Mars as it did between England and her Colonies, but still; for instance, there'll be a 13-day communication blackout between the MERs and Earth in September, due to the Sun being between us and Mars at that time. Sure, it doesn't happen often -- but it does. And if a major emergency were to arise in a Marsian colony just 2 days into the blackout? Well, I don't mean to sound dramatic but a lot -can- happen in 13 days.

Upclose, personal and hands-on is likely the best approach, IMO. Even if there are still direct ties to a particular Colony's host nation (which I imagine there will be, until said Colony could be entirely self-sufficient -- which won't be immediate, I would presume), the colonists should have direct self-rule. They're the ones who will *be there* -- dealing with life and unique challenges on a different planet whose environment is naturally inimical to human life without artificial life support.

Earth support personnel should be available in case input/advice is requested and communication should be encouraged; however, the folks back home on Earth should respect colonists' decisions and respect their autonomy.

Like Mr. Woodward, author of _Tom Paine: America's Godfather_ pointed out, if the English Parliamentarians and ruling class had been willing to listen to the unique requests, concerns, problems, etc. of the American Colonies instead of sitting back like a bunch of pompous know-it-all jackasses alternately thundering out commands and turning a deaf ear, England probably would not have lost the American Colonies to revolt. They wanted all the power and all the say; the Colonists should shut up, keep smiling and simply obey...well, we know the result.

So I think self, direct rule is best.

--Cindy

~Eternal~ · 2004-07-20 20:50:12

Both, but establishing a Constitution on Mars which would ensure civil liberties and independence by a certain date or population.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-21 05:19:21

Territory status. Local matters are decided locally, but the Martian colonies are bound to their host nation rather than having full sovereignty. The other two options are unrealistic extremes. Mars can't be governed from Washington, so that's out. But neither will any nation put up the considerable capital to establish a colony with the intent of cutting it loose at the earliest opportunity.

Until some band of political dissidents amasses the funds to undertake a colonization mission themselves you will not have independence as a factor.

So Mars, a semi-autonomous territory. Until such time as they see fit to seek statehood or wrestle away by less established means.

BWhite · 2004-07-21 07:10:49

Territory status. Local matters are decided locally, but the Martian colonies are bound to their host nation rather than having full sovereignty. The other two options are unrealistic extremes. Mars can't be governed from Washington, so that's out. But neither will any nation put up the considerable capital to establish a colony with the intent of cutting it loose at the earliest opportunity.
Until some band of political dissidents amasses the funds to undertake a colonization mission themselves you will not have independence as a factor.
So Mars, a semi-autonomous territory. Until such time as they see fit to seek statehood or wrestle away by less established means.

IMHO, the reality that the settlers will indeed seek to wrest control away from the home capital undercuts national interest in founding settlements. Whether anyone ever discusses this in public, or not.

BWhite · 2004-07-21 07:12:19

Territory status. Local matters are decided locally, but the Martian colonies are bound to their host nation rather than having full sovereignty. The other two options are unrealistic extremes. Mars can't be governed from Washington, so that's out. But neither will any nation put up the considerable capital to establish a colony with the intent of cutting it loose at the earliest opportunity.
Until some band of political dissidents amasses the funds to undertake a colonization mission themselves you will not have independence as a factor.
So Mars, a semi-autonomous territory. Until such time as they see fit to seek statehood or wrestle away by less established means.

IMHO, the reality that the settlers will indeed seek to wrest control away from the home capital undercuts national interest in founding settlements. Whether anyone ever discusses this in public, or not.

= = =

Hmmm. . .

A dissident (or quasi-dissident) group that seeks to raise funding for a private settlement? Sounds like a good plot for a novel!

EarthWolf · 2004-07-21 20:48:27

Hello,

Interesting points all. Though I gathered that the American colonial revolt was instigated by wealthy landowners/businessmen that had radicalized American politics, in response to attempted colonial policy reforms by both Crown and Parliament that threatened their profit margins. As for the possible political future of the Mars colonies, I would feel that the colonists would have to be afforded at least some self-rule/representative form of local government to assure some measure of political stability. To do otherwise might court some disastrous seeds of planetary instability.

The mention of territorial status has some merit. Allow the colony of an Earth nation some political autonomy, but keep it within the national government's sphere. Much like Puerto Rico or Hong Kong.

Cordially,

EarthWolf

Trebuchet · 2004-07-22 04:25:55

The problem with assuming that Mars will break away from Earth is that such an assumption basically is arguing that the government will be stupid enough to repeat the sort of boneheaded moves that England did even with US history as a guide. While government officials can do mind bogglingly dumb things, they would get talked out of such a masitake by their handlers/allies/donors before it resulted in a Mars Independence movement.

The only way I can see Mars becoming independent is if some sort of massive political upheaval happens in the host nation and whatever local government exists on Mars breaks off like an iceberg in the tumult. I realistically don't see Mars colonists making the first move.

I can see Mars being an idiosyncratic place politically, with views very different from the Homeworld due to its being a frontier far away, but I don't see it being the hotbed of seperatists.

Some interesting problems for a US Mars territory/state:

US territories have nonvoting representatives, and states of course have Senators and Representatives. What sort of meddling with the Constitution would be required to fix some of the problems a Martian state/territory would have getting people to Washington? By the time they finally arrive from Mars, they need to start campaigning again. Will Martian delegates telecommute? Similar problems exist for the Electoral College.

Assuming the draft is ever reinstated, what happens to drafted Martians?

When that two-week communications blackout rolls around, what happens? Does the governor of Mars have temporary Presidential powers over the stranded federal bureacracies?

Probably the best way to avoid all of that is simply to avoid making Mars colonies in the image of a future state and instead try to copy a British Commonwealth type approach, with the President of the US filling in as supreme executive but a fully independent Mars government.

clark · 2004-07-22 08:45:35

Issues that would cause the eventual seperation of a Martian colony from the direct rule of earth...

Terraforming and Immigration.

Imagine if you lived on Anarctica- it was your home. Then you had to contend with what the entire world thought on how you should live there, in what manner.

As for the blackouts, assuming a martian colony, how difficult is it really going to be to place telecommunications sat in an orbit that allows for communication? I'm guessing not very difficult.

Rxke · 2004-07-22 12:59:24

Eey huv e queveztion...

Why is everybody assuming Mars will be an American colony?

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-22 13:17:34

Eey huv e queveztion...
Why is everybody assuming Mars will be an American colony?

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case it's hopeful optimism that Mars will be colonized by Americans. It's ours to lose at the moment.

But then I'm a confessed expansionist of the old "Manifest Destiny" school, so I'm probably a bit more... belligerent on the subject than some others.

Rxke · 2004-07-22 13:34:54

Butbutbut... Truly, you capitalist American Opressor will need someone to opress, no? So you should really consider other nations to settle there, or you'll feel mighty bored!

(ok,ok... kidding!)

Seriously, isn't it more likely it will initially be an scientific/international outpost, very gradually expanding over time (with the real probability of Americans as the mayor percentage, of course, but never 100%...)

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-22 13:50:00

Seriously, isn't it more likely it will initially be an scientific/international outpost, very gradually expanding over time (with the real probability of Americans as the mayor percentage, of course, but never 100%...)

The whole "scientific outpost gradually expanding into a colony" concept is one of the great misconceptions among the space advocate community, IMOSHO. Setting up a small outpost and setting up a colony are two very different things, the one doesn't really lead to the other. Colonization won't just happen, it's something that has to be consciously and purposefully done.

So I'd expect an International outpost of some sort, but an International colony?, I'm skeptical. Possible, but somehow I foresee control aggregating into the hands of the power holding the biggest share of the purse strings, which is likely to be the United States.

But then we might just send in the cavalry to take it all anyway. :;):

BWhite · 2004-07-22 14:24:25

But then I'm a confessed expansionist of the old "Manifest Destiny" school,

Thats cool, Cobra. Now we just need to you to switch from Red to Blue.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-22 14:39:44

Thats cool, Cobra. Now we just need to you to switch from Red to Blue.

In the Martian or Terran sense?

Palomar · 2004-07-22 14:56:25

Eey huv e queveztion...
Why is everybody assuming Mars will be an American colony?

*No, no, no. I'm not, Rik.

I guess I shouldn't have used the analogy I did (and I think someone else *might* have misunderstood why I used the analogy I did).

I generally think of Marsian colonies (whether the first or subsequent) in a multinational respect.

Hope that clears it up. Sorry if the analogy I used caused any confusion...I probably shouldn't have included it. :-\

::edit:: I was simply trying to convey my opinion that -- over vast distances (and differences) -- the folks in the thick of things, facing unique challenges and etc., should be the ones calling the shots; they're THERE after all and etc. Ah well.

--Cindy

EarthWolf · 2004-07-22 16:14:48

Hello,

Well, at least with myself, I wasn't assuming that any Mars colony would be American. I was merely using U.S. history as a model for my question as to which direction colonial policy should be taken. I'd be happy if anyone set up a colony there. I'd prefer a multinational approach to the colonization of Mars.

Cordially,

EarthWolf

Rxke · 2004-07-22 17:25:07

Seriously: no offence taken, and i did not misinterpret the analogies, shouldn't have used the 'everybody' word...

Probably my own view as somekind of 'international' or rather non-national vis a vis colonisation...

Aetius · 2004-07-22 17:25:52

Personally, I think the eventual Martians will be mostly Chinese. China will never be seen as a Superpower, in the truest sense of the word, until it creates a 'Wonder Of The World'. The only way to do that, in my opinion, will be to outdo the historical exploits of the American space program.

Think the PRC won't feel that it has something to prove in 50 or 100 years? I think you're wrong. The Chinese ascendency is here, and it will affect everything.

I also hope, however, that some Westerners establish colonies on Mars and elsewhere beyond Earth.

On the question of independence, I don't believe Martians will ever successfully rebel against Earth. Kim Stanley Robinson's books aside, it would be ridiculously easy for Terrans to persuade the different nationalities that their best interests lie in the status quo. All you'd need to do is expose the separatists' radical agenda, and I believe that the people will reject them. I believe that supporters of independence are greatly underestimating the degree of suspicion, if not hostility, which may also exist between the colonies.

Don't even get me started about Earth's national and corporate military advantage. Martian cities are just too vulnerable in the event of armed conflict. Even if a rebel army can hide out in the southern highlands for a time, so what? I think that corporate mercenaries and national troops will be able to maintain order while the rebels are exterminated.

I must say that I also disagree with the notion that native Martians, having lived comfortably in habitats all their lives, will just roll over and basically give the terraformers a blank check...and the power to shape everyone else's destiny.

There will be more Reds than you think, and more vested interests who support the Reds.

Scott G. Beach · 2004-07-24 20:17:22

EarthWolf:

You asked, “Should Martian colonies be ruled directly from Earth and not allowed any self-rule or should any Mars colony be governed with an eye toward eventual independence?”

I have proposed that the people in Martian settlements be authorized to adopt ordinances by which they can govern themselves. My proposal may be found in an essay titled “The Problem of Owning Mars,” which is posted on the web at http://www.geocities.com/scott956282743 … ngmars.htm

Under my proposed “Constitution of the Provisional Government of Mars” a settlement of Libertarian Martians could adopt ordinances which provide for very limited collective ownership of land and other resources, and, in contrast, a group of Hutterites (Christian communists) could adopt ordinances which prohibit the private ownership of land or anything at all.

Under my proposal, Martians could, after the establishment of two settlements, convene a Parliament and amend the Constitution or repeal it and adopt an entirely new Constitution.

My proposed constitution prohibits taking weapons to Mars and it provides for a 1-kilometer-wide buffer zone between settlement boundaries. These provisions are intended to minimize the possibility of warfare. I hope that Martians will recognize that these limiations are in their own interests and that they will keep these limitations in their constitution. If they delete these limitations or fail to honor them then they are setting themselves up for an arms race that will waste trillions of dollars and probably result in warfare that kills hundreds, thousands or millions of Martians.

In summary, I believe that Martian settlements should be self-governing and I hope that Martian leaders will govern with wisdom and kindness.

The first settlers will probably be farmers living in “agricultural neighborhoods” of about 100 people. Eventually, a growing settlement will have enough agricultural neighborhoods that it can support the construction of an urban core. This development pattern is represented by a drawing posted on the web at http://www.geocities.com/scott956282743 … thenia.htm

Scott

Martian Republic · 2004-08-01 14:36:52

I think the United States should end the argument by making a forty to fifty year commitment to build a city on Mars of a hundred thousand population. Of course I am assuming that we are going to us the Moon as a breadboard testing the new technology and building the infrastructure for building that city in a forty to fifty year time frame.

:unclesam:

I believe they should have limited sovereignty to control there own destiny or even complete and total sovereignty even. It would all depend on the Martians and American along with not repeating the same mistakes that the British made with there American colonies. But, ultimately that Martian Government would have to promote the best interest of the Martian People in a "General Welfare" common wealth interest of the Martian people.

And let the band start playing the Martian anthem.

:band:

Larry,

Scott G. Beach · 2004-08-01 16:11:18

Martian Republic:

You wrote, “I think the United States should end the argument by making a forty to fifty year commitment to build a city on Mars of a hundred thousand population.”

I agree that there should be a long-term commitment to building cities on Mars. However, I believe that achieving this goal exceeds the capacity of the United States alone. I have therefore proposed the establishment of an international regime to accomplish this goal.

I disagree with your proposal that a Martian city should have a population of 100,000. When cities become that large they usually have corruption, crime, and poverty problems. I believe that a city of about 15,000 people is much easier to manage and will provide a higher quality of life for its residents.

Martian Republic · 2004-08-01 21:22:45

Martian Republic:
You wrote, “I think the United States should end the argument by making a forty to fifty year commitment to build a city on Mars of a hundred thousand population.”
I agree that there should be a long-term commitment to building cities on Mars. However, I believe that achieving this goal exceeds the capacity of the United States alone. I have therefore proposed the establishment of an international regime to accomplish this goal.
I disagree with your proposal that a Martian city should have a population of 100,000. When cities become that large they usually have corruption, crime, and poverty problems. I believe that a city of about 15,000 people is much easier to manage and will provide a higher quality of life for its residents.

I have run into you on other forum post and I can see now that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

So I will just state my position and let it go at that.

1. Without a major country like the United States making a major the decision to build a city on Mars, it not going to happen.

2. Building a major city on Mars is a must, because we intend to build an agro-industrial-mining base, subway system that can engage in a self-replicating process to colonize the rest of Mars. We are going to need a large labor force to man factories, agriculture or farms, hospital, universities, Aero-space Port, etc. Just to name a few things.

The only way to colonize Mars, is to hit the problem head on and just assume we are going to have to build large city on Mars and get after the problem.

We build some small and we won't have any staying power as far as a permanent colony on Mars. There is a dynamic of having a large population center to dealing with the deficiencies we have on the Planet Mars like the lack of atmosphere and tree's on the Martian landscape.

If you need any proof of that, look at individual farms and there actives. Then look at small community of thirty or forty people. Then look at small community of several hundred. Then look at a community of several thousand. Then tens of thousands and then communities of hundreds of thousand.

My primary point is, the bigger the communities the more business actives it generates like factories, mining, farming etc. Unless you can generate a sufficient amount of these goods and services. You can not maintain your Martian colony and the only way you can generate a sufficient diversity in those good and services will demand a large colony to produce those goods and services in those many verities.

The problem is, you can not grow into having a colony on Mars, you have to choose to build one on purpose and you have to choose to build it big or you have a glorious outpost that will eventually be abandoned.

Now the next several town or city may be smaller, but they will use this first major city as there hub with ground transportation like super trains connecting them.

:laugh:

Larry,

EarthWolf · 2004-08-02 06:32:50

Hello,

Hmmmm. Good points, Republic. Beach has a good point, though. Larger cities generate more graft and corruption than smaller communities, though smaller communities still have it. A smaller community would have a better quality of life overall. IMHO.

Cordially,

EarthWolf

Aetius · 2004-08-02 09:59:03

I believe that the amount of graft or corruption found in a municipal government of any size is more directly attributable to the civic culture of the society at large, than to population alone.

Mars will someday be home to both large cities and small towns, in my opinion. The big cities will enjoy more prosperity than most smaller settlements, due to much greater economic activity. They will also have greater cultural possibilities, due to the larger concentration of diverse groups of people.

More crime? Sure. More corruption? Sure, but probably no more per capita than Euthenia. But also more jobs, more possibilities for real-life (NOT just virtual) cultural enrichment, and more hope to climb up the socioeconomic ladder for the ordinary Joe and Jane of Mars.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-20 18:46:02

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#2 2004-07-20 20:15:24

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#3 2004-07-20 20:50:12

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#4 2004-07-21 05:19:21

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#5 2004-07-21 07:10:49

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#6 2004-07-21 07:12:19

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#7 2004-07-21 20:48:27

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#8 2004-07-22 04:25:55

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#9 2004-07-22 08:45:35

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#10 2004-07-22 12:59:24

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#11 2004-07-22 13:17:34

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#12 2004-07-22 13:34:54

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#13 2004-07-22 13:50:00

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#14 2004-07-22 14:24:25

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#15 2004-07-22 14:39:44

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#16 2004-07-22 14:56:25

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#17 2004-07-22 16:14:48

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#18 2004-07-22 17:25:07

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#19 2004-07-22 17:25:52

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#20 2004-07-24 20:17:22

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#21 2004-08-01 14:36:52

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#22 2004-08-01 16:11:18

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#23 2004-08-01 21:22:45

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#24 2004-08-02 06:32:50

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

#25 2004-08-02 09:59:03

Re: Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule?

Board footer