New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#151 2018-11-10 22:15:56

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,519

Re: Corporate Government

So long as there are 2 sides to every topic there will always be discontent as it seems that we can not get along in that one side must be always right and the other is wrong.

Offline

#152 2018-11-11 02:26:00

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,810
Website

Re: Corporate Government

kbd512 wrote:

It's interesting that in the section entitled "Ensure no war", the end of the paragraph describes exactly how so many wars have started.

No, it's not. Wars are started when government commits armed robbery to take resources from someone else. Whether it's their own citizens who have to take up arms to stop them, or far more often it's one government trying to take resources from another. World War 1 was started over who controls a Mediterranean port. Russia didn't have a port, established allies to gain one. The Austria-Hungary empire wanted to ensure Russia didn't get it. Then Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austria-Hungary empire was assassinated in Sarajevo. That resulted in World War 1. All for a port.
reference: Wikipedia

kbd512 wrote:

I guess we should "Ensure no human nature" while we're at it.

So you're saying humans are trouble, and can't be allowed weapons to resolve conflicts. And we need a police authority, that can police governments to ensure they don't commit armed robbery. Ok, that's what I proposed.

kbd512 wrote:

I think a "no weapons period" law is perfectly reasonable in a civilization surrounded by delicate and highly-pressurized structures that are the only thing between their inhabitants and a swift death.

Ironic considering the number of times you have posted here about the need for citizens to own weapons.

My proposal is that there is no countries on Mars, no states, no entities that can engage in war. The "national" government has a major responsibility of enforcing that. If anyone tries to establish a military, the national military will slap them down. Soldiers and politicians arrested. Towns are allowed, states are not.

kbd512 wrote:

Organized and armed factions are kinda required for wars to happen.  Eliminate that and wars become exceptionally unlikely and difficult to prosecute.

That's what I just proposed.

kbd512 wrote:

I'm still unclear about what's funding the government, but will wait for further explanation.

The title of this discussion thread is "Corporate Government". That means the Corporation is the government. Funding for the "national" government comes from the Corporation. That also provides strong encouragement for the national government to be minimalist. Because the Corporation will not want to pay for large government.

kbd512 wrote:

Right after you said "no tax", in the very next paragraph you talked about assessment of what is essentially a property tax.  I think fees (taxes) for usage or consumption are fair enough ways to fund public entities entrusted with protecting the public.

Ok. That's local, it funds the city or town.

kbd512 wrote:

I disagree with the idea of permitting local laws to deviate from national law.  There doesn't need to be local laws against theft, rape, robbery, or murder.

I said local laws cannot overrule national law. National laws will be minimal, basically "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal". I further said there's detail for lawyers: assault and battery are illegal (national law), and theft/robbery/extortion/embezzlement are illegal (national law). However, rape gets more complicated. Some have claimed that if a 17-year-old girl has consentual sex with a 19-year-old boy, that constitutes "statutory rape". Consentual sex is definitely not going to be illegal by national law.

kbd512 wrote:

Anyway, I like the overall idea but think some of it needs more work.

Offline

#153 2018-11-11 15:21:16

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,133
Website

Re: Corporate Government

On the topic of libertarian government: It's important, of course, to distinguish between the local and planetary government, which you have done.  And I think in the abstract "you can do whatever you want as long as you're not harming anyone" is a reasonable-sounding rule.  The thing is that every action every person takes affects other people for better and for worse.  You suggested, for example, that people should be able to buy and sell codeine without regulation or prescription.  I don't feel the need to say that it should necessarily be handled at a planetary level, but I would say absolutely that highly addictive substances like opioids (of which codeine is one) should have limited circulation.  If a town did want to make drugs legal and available, well--that would be a good example of freedom, democracy, justice, and prosperity coming into conflict.

Mars is a stern General. A colony that tries to act like Freetown Christiana will become available for salvaging fairly quickly. If the people of a town want to become a wretched hive of scum and villainy, that won't affect anyone outside of their town. So why should they be prevented from doing so?

It's a lot harder to externalise problems on Mars. Here, if you pollute your air, you pollute everyone else's. On Mars, it sticks around and only affects you and your colony.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#154 2018-11-11 19:22:56

IanM
Moderator
From: Chicago
Registered: 2015-12-14
Posts: 276

Re: Corporate Government

I stand by my concept of Federalism outlined here. Essentially the following would be given to the federal government:
-Currency
-Bankruptcy
-Intermunicipal commerce
-Citizenship, nationality, and immigration
-Administration of the Outback
-Military (although municipalities would still be allowed to erect and maintain police forces) and Defense

While the rest would be given to the municipalities, which would be considered sovereign entities in their own right, like the US and Australia but unlike Canada and India.


The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever. -Paraphrased from Tsiolkovsky

Offline

#155 2018-11-11 20:27:22

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 5,091

Re: Corporate Government

This seems a bit quaint to me when we have (on Earth) crypto currencies, trillion dollar companies that don't make profits, borders that aren't borders, and military who are afraid to appear threatening!

IanM wrote:

I stand by my concept of Federalism outlined here. Essentially the following would be given to the federal government:
-Currency
-Bankruptcy
-Intermunicipal commerce
-Citizenship, nationality, and immigration
-Administration of the Outback
-Military (although municipalities would still be allowed to erect and maintain police forces) and Defense

While the rest would be given to the municipalities, which would be considered sovereign entities in their own right, like the US and Australia but unlike Canada and India.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#156 2018-11-12 00:28:59

JoshNH4H
Moderator
From: Pullman, WA
Registered: 2007-07-15
Posts: 2,513
Website

Re: Corporate Government

Terraformer wrote:

Mars is a stern General. A colony that tries to act like Freetown Christiana will become available for salvaging fairly quickly. If the people of a town want to become a wretched hive of scum and villainy, that won't affect anyone outside of their town. So why should they be prevented from doing so?

It's a lot harder to externalise problems on Mars. Here, if you pollute your air, you pollute everyone else's. On Mars, it sticks around and only affects you and your colony.

This is a nice idea in the abstract but there definitely are some problems.  What if 60% of the settlement wants to be a wretched hive of villainy and scum, but the other 40% would prefer to operate as a peaceful and friendly village where due process and property rights are respected?  This is a good example of how democracy can be in conflict with freedom and justice.  I don't know how aggressive the central government should be about enforcing the four principles I laid out above, but there are certain things we know about how societies should work.  Among them, rule by criminal mobs is bad.


-Josh

Offline

#157 2018-11-12 11:08:32

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,133
Website

Re: Corporate Government

Well, what did they write in their town charter? If they were silly enough to allow a simple majority to destroy it, I won't feel too bad for them. The 40% knew what they were signing up for when they moved there, and they can leave and move to another settlement if they don't like it.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#158 2018-11-12 12:29:28

JoshNH4H
Moderator
From: Pullman, WA
Registered: 2007-07-15
Posts: 2,513
Website

Re: Corporate Government

Sooner or later people will be born there, and even people who are not born there are part of a community which (even if it takes a turn for the worse) there are real costs to leaving.  There's also no real guarantee that there will be somewhere for them to go.

The minarchist architecture sounds good in theory, but in practice it seems like there are ways to organize a society that result in better outcomes for more people.


-Josh

Offline

#159 2018-11-12 14:01:25

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,133
Website

Re: Corporate Government

*shrugs* If 60% of the population are intent on getting everyone killed, then no law is going to restrain them. If most people don't care to do maintenance, there's going to be major problems anyway. Harsh environments have laws of their own, enforced with the death penalty.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#160 2018-11-12 16:08:53

kbd512
Moderator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,991

Re: Corporate Government

RobertDyck wrote:

No, it's not. Wars are started when government commits armed robbery to take resources from someone else. Whether it's their own citizens who have to take up arms to stop them, or far more often it's one government trying to take resources from another. World War 1 was started over who controls a Mediterranean port. Russia didn't have a port, established allies to gain one. The Austria-Hungary empire wanted to ensure Russia didn't get it. Then Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austria-Hungary empire was assassinated in Sarajevo. That resulted in World War 1. All for a port.

The salient point of tyranny is that tyrannical people involved have a penchant for disarming or denying to the people they wish to victimize any effective means of fighting back, right before the mass murder begins.  War is just organized mass murder.  Who a war is prosecuted against and why is irrelevant to most of the dead people who never wanted to have anything to do with it, but were never given a choice in the matter.

RobertDyck wrote:

So you're saying humans are trouble, and can't be allowed weapons to resolve conflicts. And we need a police authority, that can police governments to ensure they don't commit armed robbery. Ok, that's what I proposed.

I'm saying that human behavior is the problem and unless you separate what it means to be human from humanity, then the problem won't be solved by any ill-conceived social engineering experiments, which all criminals will simply ignore, as they already do.

To quote my Chief, "There's nothing wrong with a little shooting, so long as the right people get shot."

RobertDyck wrote:

Ironic considering the number of times you have posted here about the need for citizens to own weapons.

Most Americans don't live in delicate and highly pressurized structures, far removed from the ability to obtain outside help to repair them.  The one or two floating around in orbit do and they don't have any use for firearms aboard ISS, either.

The Police here in Houston will arrive just in the nick of time to draw chalk around your dead body.  It's a question of capability through proximity and availability.  I can't afford my own Police Officer, so I have to both pay my government for the privilege of having someone I can never depend upon when I really need him or her and pay to defend my family.

RobertDyck wrote:

My proposal is that there is no countries on Mars, no states, no entities that can engage in war. The "national" government has a major responsibility of enforcing that. If anyone tries to establish a military, the national military will slap them down. Soldiers and politicians arrested. Towns are allowed, states are not.

I'm at a loss as to where we're going to find these completely benevolent dictators.  It sounds like you're talking about setting up Soviet Russia with snazzier chops.  Your solution to preventing the entities that MIGHT go to war and commit mass murder is to ACTUALLY commit mass murder, unless you're naive enough to think that everyone involved in the uprising will just lay down their weapons.

RobertDyck wrote:

That's what I just proposed.

If you say so.

RobertDyck wrote:

The title of this discussion thread is "Corporate Government". That means the Corporation is the government. Funding for the "national" government comes from the Corporation. That also provides strong encouragement for the national government to be minimalist. Because the Corporation will not want to pay for large government.

You're not very familiar with General Motors, are you?

RobertDyck wrote:

Ok. That's local, it funds the city or town.

The corporation somehow funds itself without taking money from the people it's governing?

I guess I'll believe that when I see it.

RobertDyck wrote:

I said local laws cannot overrule national law. National laws will be minimal, basically "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal". I further said there's detail for lawyers: assault and battery are illegal (national law), and theft/robbery/extortion/embezzlement are illegal (national law). However, rape gets more complicated. Some have claimed that if a 17-year-old girl has consentual sex with a 19-year-old boy, that constitutes "statutory rape". Consentual sex is definitely not going to be illegal by national law.

I'm not sure how to handle such a case, but I think we've hit upon a point of agreement.

Trying to use the law to dictate morality beyond behavior that is clearly definable as destructive to society is always a slippery slope.  There used to be laws against gay people getting married or just having sex with each other.  Why would society care if two adults had consensual sex?  Beats me.  I don't care what people do on their own time and their own dime, so long as they don't demand payment from me.

The idea looks good on paper.  The legal framework is fairly reasonable.  The use of force stuff needs more nuance, or I fear another tyrannical dictatorship established by people espousing utopian ideals.  If you think nobody will take their earthly ideas with them to Mars, you're dreaming.

Offline

#161 2018-11-12 20:32:38

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,810
Website

Re: Corporate Government

kbd512: You realize the United States is the world's greatest exporter of military arms. The United States is the only industrialized country in the world that allows citizens to concealled-carry. The United States is the social experiment, not Canada. And the result?
2010_homicide_suicide_rates_high-income_countries.png

Now I realize Mars will be a frontier. That means you have to defend yourself against bandits. That's why I propose defensive weapons would be Ok on Mars. However, weapons of war would not be. If you still argue, then list how many M16 carbines you posses. How many AK47? How many fully automatic guns of any make? How many armoured fighting vehicles (tanks)? How many fighter jets? They're illegal in the US, so why would you think they should be legal on Mars?

Offline

#162 2018-11-12 20:47:56

kbd512
Moderator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,991

Re: Corporate Government

Robert,

Take away murders from gangs selling drugs and those numbers fall right in line with what you'd see in other countries.  I care not how someone choose to end their life because I care not what they do with their own body, so long as they hurt no one else.

But yes, we're the most profitable exporter of military weapons.  Canada is one of our best customers. smile

I don't own any machine guns such as the M-16 or AK-47, but they're legal to own according to federal law as long as you have the right paperwork on file with the BATFE.  It's perfectly legal to own your own tank or fighter jet in the US and rich people routinely use them as air racing toys and for mock aerial combat, similar to Red Flag or Top Gun, but without tens of millions of taxpayers' dollar spent on the gas bill.  Some of the older tank models cost about as much as my Escalade.  You better have deep pockets to pay for the gas, though.  Getting the ammo for them can be problematic, but people manage.

Offline

#163 2018-11-12 21:00:31

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,810
Website

Re: Corporate Government

Look. Even in the US a city is not allowed to posses a military. Why do you obsessing over that? Is it the NRA fairy tale about taking up arms against your own government? Ruby Ridge was about a citizen melitia that trained to do just that. President Clinton sent Janet Reno and her gang of thugs to assassinate them. Waco was really the same thing. You're not going to take down a government with guns. You take it down by electing a Donald Trump.

Offline

#164 2018-11-13 01:13:56

kbd512
Moderator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,991

Re: Corporate Government

I don't support the idea of a city having a military for all the good reasons you already listed.  What you think is reasonable, what I think is reasonable, and what the government thinks is reasonable are likely to be three very different things.

All I want you to think about is, "What's the worst thing that could possibly happen if your idea about how to govern went horribly wrong?"

Start from there and work your way backwards.

When one group of people has all the weapons that are truly effective for fighting, what will happen if they decide they want to retain power?

Once again, where are we going to get these benevolent dictators from?

Offline

#165 2018-11-13 04:55:30

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,810
Website

Re: Corporate Government

Let me put it this way. I said the Mars will have only 2 levels of government: national and municipal. In my initial post I said federal and municipal, but again others pointed out what I described is a unitary government, not federal. The national government would have jurisdiction over all of Mars, everything. Municipal government would have jurisdiction over just a town. Now who us going to enforce that? Once you have a settlement with a town government, who thinks of themselves as a government, who is going to ensure they don't built a military and attack neighbouring towns?

History: initially there were only towns. Then towns grew to cities. Each city was a country unto itself with a military dictator who called himself king. Then large cities such as Babylon decided to conquer neighbouring towns and force them to pay tribute. They weren't large nations as we would describe a nation today, just a large town that forced neighbouring towns to pay them tribute. One year the Northern kingdom of Israel refused to pay tribute to the Assyrian empire, so the king sent his army to punish them. All men of military age were slaughtered, regardless whether they fought or not. All women, children, and old men were force-marched to Assyria were they were treated as slaves. Assyria had a lot of slaves taken from neighbouring towns, all with different languages. Hebrew people had split into two kingdoms: Judea and Israel. Judea didn't refuse the tribute, so they were left alone. Heard of the lost tribes? This is it. They were forced to learn the Assyrian language and culture, to read and write their language. Writing lessons included religious and cultural stories from Assyrian culture. This is when Hebrew people learned to read and write, the Torah (Hebrew Bible) didn't exist before that. Capital city of Assyria was Babylon. Assyria still spoke the Babylonian language and culture from the previous Babylonian empire. Babylonian culture was based on the even older Sumerian culture. One project they were forced to work on was building a giant central government building in Babylon called a Ziggurat. This is believed to be the "Tower of Babel" described in the Bible. There were several Ziggurats built, the oldest is in Ur which dates to the 21st century BCE, when it was Sumeria. Ruins of the Ziggurat of Ur still exist. But most believe the "Tower of Babel" was the one in Babylon. Here is a model based on archaeology...
ziggurat02.jpg

So who is going to prevent some despot from taking up arms against neighbouring towns?

Last edited by RobertDyck (2018-11-13 05:58:04)

Offline

#166 2018-11-13 05:14:57

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,133
Website

Re: Corporate Government

Robert,

The UK has it's own military. So does France, and Japan, and America, and Canada, and even Germany. It's been quite a few years (73) since those countries all had a bust up. But I suppose we should all turn our arms over to the UN to avoid the risk of tyranny.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#167 2018-11-13 05:25:50

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,810
Website

Re: Corporate Government

Last night was the first episode of the second season of the show "Mars" on National Geographic channel. It depicts a corporation that builds a settlement. They did not announce they were coming, and discarded onto the existing settlement, causing damage and almost hitting crew on the surface in space suits. They don't have enough power or water, demanding the scientific settlement built by an international space agency provide it. They build a pipe to the scientific settlement. In the last scene, the commander of the corporate settlement said "You have to know there are no real boundaries here. Not for Lucrom anyway. We're a company not a country. We didn't sign the outer space treaty and we aren't even based in a country that did sign it. So those laws... they only apply to you guys."

Without a police force, that will happen.

Offline

#168 2018-11-13 05:50:05

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,810
Website

Re: Corporate Government

Terraformer wrote:

Robert,

The UK has it's own military. So does France, and Japan, and America, and Canada, and even Germany. It's been quite a few years (73) since those countries all had a bust up. But I suppose we should all turn our arms over to the UN to avoid the risk of tyranny.

Not what I said. What I said is Mars will be one country, one nation, with only one national government. The national government of Mars will have it's own military. Towns on Mars will only be towns, they will not be permitted a military the same as towns in the UK do not have their own military.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB