Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

Ian · 2003-09-24 12:22:35

Will the Martian settelers eventually form nations on Mars or world governments on Mars?

Palomar · 2003-09-24 13:24:26

Will the Martian settelers eventually form nations on Mars or world governments on Mars?

*Your guess is as good as mine.

There has been extensive discussion (or shall I say *speculation*) related to this in previous threads.

Perhaps combing through the folders will yield some rewards, provide you with some food for thought, insights, etc.

I can't reiterate going through the old folders enough; we've had some really excellent conversations regarding most things in the past.

--Cindy

~Eternal~ · 2003-09-25 12:10:21

Its human nature to divide into diffrent cultures and split into nations.
I believe a unified alliance between Martian nations would be more acceptable than a Martian Government.

Cobra Commander · 2003-09-26 20:20:05

It has been my observation that human groups define themselves in large part by emphasizing differences with other groups. If you take any twenty people and place them on an island, they'll split into at least two distinct groups very quickly. In America we have such obvious differences that it's hard to understand the big deal in other parts of the world. Can you tell the difference between a Bosnian and a Serb? a Hutu and a Tutsi? It's damn important to them.

In short, however carefully Martian colonists are screened their societies will fragment. They will want to live as independently as possible, in many cases that may be the entire point of going. Human beings naturally separate. Uniting them requires force, and there comes a time when it just isn't worth the trouble.

el scorcho · 2003-09-27 21:13:59

I don't know what will actually happen, but it is my belief that any global government on Mars (or Earth for that matter) would not survive unless it existed in the form of a carefully constructed federation or confederacy. The first few colonies could get together and hold a constitutional convention to construct a federal system that retained large amounts of power to the individual colonies or settlements. The federal government's power would be very limited--collect taxes, regulate trade, and provide for planetary defense by creating a military (hey, you never know...what if Earth invades?)

The colonies must be very powerful so that the inevitably different groups of people who live in each respective colony can remain content within the new government. The last thing we need on Mars is a breakdown in order and a planetary civil war.

Ian · 2003-09-28 17:24:30

Boundaries between different colonies will eventually not have that much importance because the different colonies might eventually develop an internet like we have on earth. What would the potential impact be on the future martian colonies? Could the government be run using computers connected to the internet and different representatives from different colonies meeting online? What about digital voting? Digital voting is already happening on earth. Eventually people won't need to leave their homes in order to vote.

clark · 2003-09-29 10:15:00

Some good points here.

My view though is that a unified government encompassing Mars, and her moons, is the most likely realization for any would be colonization efforts of Mars. Yes, people define themselves by defining differences from other groups, but who would those be for colonists on Mars?

Who do you have more in common with if you live on Mars, the other fellow in the habitat on the other side of the globe, or the 'sky-breathers' back on Earth?

What do you worry about living on Mars? Who else worries about the same things? Who would help if you had a problem with the things you worry about? People living in an open environment, or the people living in the same situation as you?

It makes sense to form a large central body to represent all of Mars- in this way, united, the seperate colonies of mars, with small populations (in relation to Earth, the center of Sol) can be in a better bargaining position with Earth governments (whatever they may be).

For you american patriots, hang together, or hang seperately, seems to be rather apt. Remember, those who have something in common, are more likely to form a group around whatever it is they have in common.

One need only look on this board, to see how an entire spectrum of humanity can be tied by one particular idea to one another.

As to how a central government would be formed, I imagien whatever 'works'. My guess though is something that allows for a majority of decisions to be determined by the seperate colonies, with a mandate for a minimum of protections and guareentee's for all individuals regardless of which habitat they reside in.

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-29 14:24:18

My guess is that once the colonization phase begins, the inital groups will feel liberated from their lack of an over reaching government, and would oppose any sort of government where central authority exists. Or at least, I think they would be wise to do so.

sethmckiness · 2003-09-30 22:08:58

My guess would be that some sort of interdependency would be prefered.

1.) If Colonies worked together, or where atleast allied they could have support, get hard to find items needed for sustainability, and then share commodities.

2.) Eventually Martian colonies may unite, but I would give a Scientific Wild Ass Guess and say that is would be a limited world government, something slightly more significant then UN/World Bank/Inter Pol

3.) Mars will most likely start out as some sort of research colony or mining colony with very little government. Probably run like a forward military outpost or Base.

Those are the things I envision being the primary factors in the early years. Many of it also depends on the cross-section of people who colonize the planet. Certain groups may not get along as well as other groups.

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-22 15:28:00

Who do you have more in common with if you live on Mars, the other fellow in the habitat on the other side of the globe, or the 'sky-breathers' back on Earth?

To us, looking at the Martian colonists they wouldn't seem to have any significant differences, but it isn't about our perceptions. My point is that human groups will always find differences.

For example, I don't see any difference between one black teenager in L.A. and another, yet the Bloods and Crips aren't exactly on good social terms. While possibly an extreme case, the same general trend will still be present on Mars once the population reaches an appreciable size. Maybe the colonists near the Mariner Valley will develop some hostility toward the Cydonia group over some issue or another. Maybe an American colony and a Chinese colony will face off. Maybe one part of a single colony just won't like the construction style of another and that sets off something.

Not that rivalry or conflict are inherently bad, it drives progress, but attempting to force a planetary government when it isn't wanted will only create problems, unless one nation seizes the entire planet from day-one or sufficient force is to be brought to bear to unite the colonies, but I hardly think that the western powers have the stomach for that. Of course that life-support kill-switch could come in handy

For you american patriots, hang together, or hang seperately, seems to be rather apt. Remember, those who have something in common, are more likely to form a group around whatever it is they have in common.

Only because we had a mutual desire to kick some British ass, a self-defined difference with another group occupying the same territory. And then the States drifted apart under the Articles of Confederation.

One need only look on this board, to see how an entire spectrum of humanity can be tied by one particular idea to one another.

I've often wondered what would happen if we, all of us on this board, got to Mars and suddenly had to govern it. I would expect that some fisticuffs would ensue.

clark · 2003-10-22 16:38:03

I've often wondered what would happen if we, all of us on this board, got to Mars and suddenly had to govern it. I would expect that some fisticuffs would ensue.

Something tells me I would be the first one thrown out the airlock. :laugh:

Only because we had a mutual desire to kick some British ass, a self-defined difference with another group occupying the same territory. And then the States drifted apart under the Articles of Confederation.

But that's kind of the point. Any future MArtian whatever will be in opposition to the Old Earth Nations and population of Earth. Mars will have less population, and less power in relation to the Old established powers. In order to effect any measurable amount of self-determination, they will need to be united, to better counter-act the machinations of Old Earth.

Take the issue of terraforming- that could be readily decided, determined, and dictated to Mars, by the population of Earth. Yet any Martian would be hard pressed to make changes, or have their views imposed, upon Old Earth's environment to regulate CO2 emmisions or what not.

In these instances, future martians will inevitably see more to gain by agreeing to decide their collective fates together, in opposition to Old Earth. Yeah, individual factions within the 'mars world' will develop, but in my opinion, it's similar to how the states in the US deal with one another and resolve their own disputes (without threat of violence).

So where does that leave us? Not sure. But I know I better learn to hold my breath a little longer...

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-22 18:26:00

I've often wondered what would happen if we, all of us on this board, got to Mars and suddenly had to govern it. I would expect that some fisticuffs would ensue.
Something tells me I would be the first one thrown out the airlock. :laugh:

I'd probably be right behind you.

Only because we had a mutual desire to kick some British ass, a self-defined difference with another group occupying the same territory. And then the States drifted apart under the Articles of Confederation.
But that's kind of the point. Any future Martian whatever will be in opposition to the Old Earth Nations and population of Earth.

I really don't like comparisons between Mars and colonial America as they lead to these kind of bad analogies. Unless an Earth government has troops on the ground it's a completely different scenario. When the British told the American colonists how things were gonna be, they had soldiers ready to come in to town. If Earth tries to direct the Martian colony, assuming they've reached the point of self-sufficiency, what can they do if the Martians give the homeworld the rigid digit and go about their business? Trade embargo? Maybe. Harsh condemnation? Ohh, I'm quaking. Saddam is here too and utterly mortified.

If Earth is actually in a position to compell compliance from Mars, then the people will be united but otherwise without that outside threat they'll fragment. Even here in the US I'm beginning to believe to we stay as unites as we are by tradition more than anything, given the tone these days. Terran powers have the ability to ensure that Mars is unified, but that involves intentionally setting up a colony that is going to be hostile. If Earth is not bullying the Martians, they won't care.

Not that I oppose a unified Martian government, far from it. I just don't think it's going to prove practical without first establishing a colonized, fragmented Mars and then binding them together with the theat of force, whether military or economic. I'd prefer that you be right on this one, but I'll be holding my breath for a very long time indeed.

Bill White · 2003-10-22 20:30:42

To my fellow air-less colonists -

Don't forget that a strong central government and a secure legal system and a secure system of property records is essential to a vibrant economy.

No mechanism to enforce contracts or clear checks or make and collect loans? No powerhouse economy. Period. No Recorder of Deeds or County Clerk to assure unambiguous land title records - - with a legitimate Sheriff to enforce decrees? Constant warfare and armed settlers guarding every dome.

Whether or not you believe property rights originate with God, without a strong central government for enforcement, property rights are worthless. Want some Confederate States of America currency? Or Saddam land grants?

With interlocking trade agreements, currency exchange markets and the like, we are already well on the way to a central world government right here on Earth. If your VISA credit card, issued by an EU bank in Brussels, can be used to draw cash from an ATM machine in Bangkok, Tokyo, Ankara and Quito, Ecuador then we already are well on our way to a world government, albeit limited in scope.

As for Mars, I predict some sort of federal system with certain decisions being made at the planetary level - - and enforced with planet wide force; other decisions made at more local levels and some decisions being left up the inhabitants of each particular dome or lava tube.

clark · 2003-10-23 06:36:42

I'd probably be right behind you.

Wouldn't dream of it! You first. :laugh:

I really don't like comparisons between Mars and colonial America as they lead to these kind of bad analogies.

I think my analogy is apt, even if I agree with your general point of view on this. :;):

I was hoping to convey the general sense of what I am getting at with my, 'bad analogy', but let me try again.

I understand where you are coming from, with the need to kind of threaten each other into relationships. But here is how I see it: You have a bunch of people, let's say anywhere from 10,000 to 10,000,000 on a dead, vacum filled planet, millions of miles from billions of other people. By and large, these people on Mars will be living their lives within a 'community', and they will have little need to supervise each others actions.

Everyone caN pretty much go their own way because what laws are passed on in HAB A, don't really affect HAB B. So there is no need for a unified system of government to deal with social laws and customs. But when would they need something like that?

Well, for transportation between the HAB A and HAB B. Who wil be more likely to travel between the HABS, more frequently- people on Mars, or people from Earth? So here we need common held agreements between the HABS to smooth interactions. BUt it dosen't stop there- in any relationship with Earth, a Mars HAB will have less population, and less 'power' (be it economic, cultural, social, etc.). The threat of economic embaro's are very much a real concern- trade is how Mars will survive and thrive- just like the little ol Dutch, living on a cold plain in the middle of Europe.

That means, seperate, the HABS have even less economic clout- think of it like a union- they band together in order to have greater clout when dealin in trade transactions and agreements. Seperate, the HABS can be individualy targeted for economic embargo's, yet together though, Earth powers that be, would have to face the prospect of embargoing ALL of Mar's HAB's- not something they may be able to do if vested interests on Earth, with billions at stake, might lose some profits.

No need to threaten anyone, the need is real, and eventually, Martians would see the evident neccessity of banding together in order to effect greater economic self-determination.

And Bill, I couldn't agree more. On the air-less part of course. :laugh:

Bill White · 2003-10-23 06:52:27

That means, seperate, the HABS have even less economic clout- think of it like a union- they band together in order to have greater clout when dealin in trade transactions and agreements

There also is the idea of network value.

How much is one telephone worth if no one else on the planet has one? What is the value of a telephone network?

Habitats that cooperate and trade greatly multiply their total economic output yet trade requires shared laws and customs and mechanisms for enforcement of those same trade laws and customs.

All of which simply is. . . government.

clark · 2003-10-23 07:00:36

Habitats that cooperate and trade greatly multiply their total economic output yet trade requires shared laws and customs and mechanisms for enforcement of those same trade laws and customs.

hich is why I had once suggested the rather ill-received idea of a 'kill' switch.

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-23 16:12:34

I must admit to an oversight on my part. rejoice, I rarely do this as it is rarely necessary.

I've been formulating my opinion on this issue based on the modern concept of government, as in a large, regulation spewing, tax-chomping, freedom stifling monster. I'm not considering things such as travel arrangements between habs and currency exchange to be functions of a planetary government. The exchange of currency is essentially a function of the free market. Governments can artificially over-value their currency, but the market corrects in other ways. It will be in the economic interests of colonies to establish rates of exchange, but this does not need a planetary government.

Transportation is again a local function. If we, the people of hab "A" want to trade with hab "B" we'll work out mutually satisfactory arrangements. Hab "C" isn't welcome because they melted down a reactor over one of our claims. Screw had "C". Of course Hab "D" has no problem with them, and we in hab "A" have good relations with hab "D." Everything works out without the Martian Fed getting involved.

As for universal recognition of land claims and joint bargaining, I'll concede the benefits of planetary unity. But for this something similar to the old "Articles of Confederation" would be sufficient as the various colonies would be united when something from outside forced them to do so for their own interests, in which case they'd be united anyway regardless of the loose government. Which is essesntially what I've been saying all along.

Bill White · 2003-10-23 20:25:07

I must admit to an oversight on my part. rejoice, I rarely do this as it is rarely necessary.

Cool! My wife and I are going dancin' tonight!

Transportation is again a local function.

What about nuclear powered "hopper" rockets capable of reaching any point on Mars (with WMD?) in less than an hour. Yet a pure kinetic weapon will wreak havoc on any dome even without WMD.

Is the regulation of such things a local function?

= = =

The examples I really prefer are banking regulation and the regulation of financial markets. Recently some mutual fund traders got indicted for "shaving" on trades. Its essentially plain vanilla fraud but without a sophisticated financial crimes unit in the Department of Justice such crimes would never get noticed let alone caught.

How does the Department of Justice get a sophisticated financial crimes unit? Taxes and a profesional cadre of bureaucrats. Abolish this unit and Aunt Mabel had best keep her money the hell off Wall Street. A mattress would be safer. And less productive for all of us.

What about the FDIC? Here in Chicagoland (yes thats what we locals call the greater Chicago area) a local/regional bank folded a few years ago. Superior Bank. The Feds had it carefully planned in advance. The branches were all closed for one day. Sign companies were in place and the next day CharterOne signed were plastered all over the Superior Bank logos.

Anyway, I know a few people who had accounts in excess of the $100,000 FDIC limit, They lost their money (in excess of $100,000). Gone. No appeal or recourse. They were given accounts at CharterOne with exactly $100,000 on deposit and folks with less than $100,000 balances were given full credit.

No FDIC? Panic and instability. With the FDIC the bank failure annoyed and actually harmed a few but most people suffered mild inconvenience at most.

How time and trouble would people and small business owners have to spend (wasted and unproductive time) if the FDIC did not exist? How could anyone possibly do business if they could not rely that their bank balances were guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States?

The FDIC needs tax revenue to function and a cadre of professional, well trained career bureaucrats.

I can go on, and on.

Bottom line? Good regulation and bureaucracy is good. Foolish regulation and bureaucracy is bad. Telling the difference isn't always easy.

Oh Cobra? Do you envision insurance being available on Mars? IMHO Lloyds of London does a pretty effective job of being a global government - - right now - - concerning many aspects of international commerce. Obey Lloyds of London rules, or don't do business. Period.

clark · 2003-10-24 09:59:38

I must admit to an oversight on my part. rejoice, I rarely do this as it is rarely necessary.

I'm wallowing in my own crapulence.

I agree with Bill, as usual, which gets kind of boring. [whisper] "Hey Bill, come on, stop being so... so... SANE." :laugh:

Seriously though Cobra, your not far off in your thinking, and it's driven by some of your well founded fears of big govn'ment. I think 12 people, or even 100 people, or even 1,000 people really don't need FDIC or FDA or even the IRS.

So I will ask you, why not? Think about it though for a bit, and here I will give the answer: Accountability.

That's what Bill is pointing out. That is the neccessity of bigger and bigger governments as populations increase. Why?

Becuase as population increases, personal accountability between individuals diminsihes. With 12 people, or 100 people, or even a thousand, you can get to 'know' everyone else. You can develop a relationship based on trust, on previous experience becuase you all encounter one another on a consistent basis. You all live in the same general area, so you can recognize the face, the name, or whether or not someone is a crank, or not.

But what happens when we starty looking at number in the tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousand? Millions? And dare I dream with Bill, trillions?

Personal accountability between individuals takes a nose dive. There is no way any single person could take the neccessary steps to hold all these other strangers accountable. That's what the situation is- one of strangers having to interact with one another by neccessity, but without any foundation of trust (other than some idealistic idea of hope in individual morality).

So, when it get's to the point I don't know my local farmer, or my local butcher, or where they are getting their food from, I need somebody other than myself to hold these strangers accountable. Ideally, this third party is someone I can trust, and someone I can feel confident will have my best interests in mind. I also would like a means to figure out which one of these people isn't looking out for my best interests, so I can replace them with someone who will.

See, that's the point. And I think it's a point many people fail to see when they think about Mars beyond just 12 or 100 people.

Take the issue of Hab A, Hab B, and Hab C. imagine each having a different way of dealing with saftey. Well, in order to travel to any particular Hab to another Hab, you better know their saftey procedures, right? Well, no problem, only three Habs, so it's not to much to learn, it's not that much of an inconveniance. Yet what if we're looking at ten different Habs? 30 differnt Habs? Suddenly, everyone is doing everything differently, and visitors are less and less likely to be as competant as they should be (knowing all the saftey rules). Now the situation is becoming more and mroe dangerous becuase I know less and less people, and I am farily certain that some stranger, whom I don't know, is going to screw up and cause me and my family to be sucked out into space.

Government is the arbiter of relationships between strangers. I don't know you, you don't know me, but we both know our same government, so we have an ability to develop a defined relationship governing our actions and expectations with one another.

You don't need a government for this with two people who know one another. You do need this for people who don't know one another, or who probably never will.

See? :;):

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-24 14:42:41

Bill, Clark; all good points. Now why do these national functions on earth require a Martian planetary government? Could not Mars be divided into sovereign states who work out their own arrangements, as is the case on Earth?

Assuming of course that the Martians have any choice in the matter. Nobody is going to send colonists to set up an independent state unless they're a terrible irritation to keep around.

Hey, maybe I've got a shot

clark · 2003-10-24 14:53:11

Now why do these national functions on earth require a Martian planetary government?

Ah, to the point, eh?

Why can't these national functions be carried out for the entire Martian planet? Mars, by virtue of exsistence, is devoid of any human history to prevent such an entity. We don't have one on Earth becuase too mnay sub-groups have good reason to fear other sub-groups, all along irrational lines.

There is also the the cost of supporting all these 'extra' beuaracratic parasites. With each 'national' government on Mars there must be a duplication of effort for each nation. So Instead of ONE non-productive beauracrat, we have two, or three, or four, or ten. Not exactly the right way to go where effeciency is a neccessity.

Then there is the very real issue of what we see on Earth- a strong central government is able to coerce, in a non-violent manner, other government entites to come to peaceful resolution of disputes. Where we see war, it is between two government entities unable to, or unwilling to come to a peaceful resolution of disputes, so they try to force it.

On Mars, in space, war equals death for everyone concerned. The simple fact of the matter is living in vacum is a very fragile proposition. Add to this nuclear reactors, objects and vehicles that are little more than high-velocity missles, and you can see the precarious situation we are dealing with.

Once again, environment determines behavior.

Nobody is going to send colonists to set up an independent state unless they're a terrible irritation to keep around.
Hey, maybe I've got a shot

You know, I used to have GI joe action figures once long ago. That is untill I strapped them to some bottle rockets!

Here's hoping you make it further than they did... and with more of your pieces still attached. :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-24 15:25:25

Why can't these national functions be carried out for the entire Martian planet? Mars, by virtue of exsistence, is devoid of any human history to prevent such an entity. We don't have one on Earth becuase too mnay sub-groups have good reason to fear other sub-groups, all along irrational lines.

But what would motivate people to give up a comfortable lifestyle in a developed Western nation to go live in box in a frozen wasteland with an unbreathable atmosphere? I would go to get away from government that sticks its hands into everything. Then to find out that the pristine wasteland has a government that spans the entire planet? Off to Europa I guess. A planetary government, particularly if designed by "experts" will quickly turn into a menace.

"I've got a better way to extract oxygen."
"You can't."
"Why not?"
"You need permits 42123-A, 463-C, and 847-T to use nuclear equipment in mining operation."
"But I'm not mining, I'm scooping frozen CO2 from the ground, and I'm only using the Hab's reactor to charge my machine before leaving."
"Oh, you're off-site. Do you have a registered land claim verification?"

You see were this is going. I like the idea of unregulated territory on what is after all supposed to be a frontier. Maybe I want to develop a cure for cancer, or maybe I'm just breeding a race of super-monkeys to take over all of Utopia Planitia, either way, leave me alone. Nobody lives there, it's a valid claim if I get that damn form filled out.

There is also the the cost of supporting all these 'extra' beuaracratic parasites. With each 'national' government on Mars there must be a duplication of effort for each nation. So Instead of ONE non-productive beauracrat, we have two, or three, or four, or ten. Not exactly the right way to go where effeciency is a neccessity.

Let's look at the UN, for which there is but one for the entire planet. It is the very model of inefficiency. I see no reason that Mars would develop a more productive, less corrupt entity. In the name of efficiency let's get rid of as many bureaucrats as possible, by localizing them and minimizing their powers.

And those damn elections too

clark · 2003-10-24 15:39:46

But what would motivate people to give up a comfortable lifestyle in a developed Western nation to go live in box in a frozen wasteland with an unbreathable atmosphere?

I have been racking my brain to figure this out. Better yet, why would people go there to have children, and what would their kids make of it? :;):

I would go to get away from government that sticks its hands into everything. Then to find out that the pristine wasteland has a government that spans the entire planet?

So you would prefer to live where any yahoo can set up a nuclear reactor and do god knows what with it? Or, in a place where any yahoo can create a race of super monkies? Come on, you point out the absurdity of over-regulation, but that is the result of a government given more power with less accountability. We can still have a one-world government, and restrictions on what, and how it regulates certain functions.

The UN does some good, but it is primarily a beaucratic organization for other beaucracies. Use the US as a model of federal state with a strong central government capable of coercing member governments for conflict resolution.

In the name of efficiency let's get rid of as many bureaucrats as possible, by localizing them and minimizing their powers.

I agree, but let each Hab belong to the overall governing body and let any disputes be arbitrated by it, and enforced.

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-24 17:46:32

So you would prefer to live where any yahoo can set up a nuclear reactor and do god knows what with it? Or, in a place where any yahoo can create a race of super monkies?

So, in the absence of a planetary government on Earth, can I set up nuclear reactors in some uninhabited corner of the world and unleash the super-monkeys? Of course not, because multiple states will see me as a mutual threat (or nuisance) and deal with me. No need for world government.

The UN does some good, but it is primarily a beaucratic organization for other beaucracies. Use the US as a model of federal state with a strong central government capable of coercing member governments for conflict resolution.

A federal union is a bad idea in this case, at this juncture. A confederation would be more suitable, giving the central government the authority to carry out the functions of establishing and enforcing property rights and collective bargaining with Terran powers, and nothing more. No Martian welfare apparatus, no Martian army, no Martian State Department. And very low taxes.

clark · 2003-10-24 18:24:49

Of course not, because multiple states will see me as a mutual threat (or nuisance) and deal with me. No need for world government.

Okay, so you would prefer to rely on unknown alliances that develop at circumstances dictate in reaction to events. Reactive instead of proactive. This isn't neccessarily the wisest course of action given the environment.

It also becomes increasingly difficult to do as population increases. ???

A confederation would be more suitable, giving the central government the authority to carry out the functions of establishing and enforcing property rights and collective bargaining with Terran powers, and nothing more. No Martian welfare apparatus, no Martian army, no Martian State Department. And very low taxes.

So the solution is to recreate the same problems we have with the UN? There is a reason the Articles of Conederation didn't last longer than 10 years. There is a reason that EU is moving towards a super-state, and away from their own version of the US articles of confederation.

Should we really ignore these hard won lessons?

The central body must have the means to enforce it's own exsitence, otherwise it will succumb to infighting, and personal gain of individual member states.

Come on, you seem to know your history, you're telling me you're willing to let your personal politcal philosphy undo learned lessons from history? ???

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-09-24 12:22:35

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#2 2003-09-24 13:24:26

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#3 2003-09-25 12:10:21

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#4 2003-09-26 20:20:05

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#5 2003-09-27 21:13:59

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#6 2003-09-28 17:24:30

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#7 2003-09-29 10:15:00

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#8 2003-09-29 14:24:18

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#9 2003-09-30 22:08:58

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#10 2003-10-22 15:28:00

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#11 2003-10-22 16:38:03

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#12 2003-10-22 18:26:00

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#13 2003-10-22 20:30:42

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#14 2003-10-23 06:36:42

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#15 2003-10-23 06:52:27

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#16 2003-10-23 07:00:36

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#17 2003-10-23 16:12:34

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#18 2003-10-23 20:25:07

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#19 2003-10-24 09:59:38

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#20 2003-10-24 14:42:41

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#21 2003-10-24 14:53:11

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#22 2003-10-24 15:25:25

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#23 2003-10-24 15:39:46

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#24 2003-10-24 17:46:32

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#25 2003-10-24 18:24:49

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

Board footer