Hudson's Bay Company - an interesting analogy?

louis · 2012-06-05 07:09:04

There is an interesting historical analogy to how a Consortium might operate on Mars - the Hudson's Bay Company.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson's_Bay_Company#Early_years

"The Hudson's Bay Company (French: Compagnie de la Baie d'Hudson), abbreviated HBC, or "The Bay" ("La Baie" in French) is the oldest commercial corporation in North America and one of the oldest in the world. A fur trading business for much of its existence, today Hudson's Bay Company owns and operates retail stores throughout Canada. The company is headquartered in the Simpson Tower in Toronto, Ontario.[1]

The company was incorporated by English royal charter in 1670 as The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay and functioned as the de facto government in parts of North America before European states and later the United States laid claim to those territories. It was at one time the largest landowner in the world, with Rupert's Land having 15% of North American acreage. From its long time headquarters at York Factory on Hudson Bay, the company controlled the fur trade throughout much of British-controlled North America for several centuries. Undertaking early exploration, its traders and trappers forged early relationships with many groups of First Nations/Native Americans. Its network of trading posts formed the nucleus for later official authority in many areas of Western Canada and the United States. In the late 19th century, its vast territory became the largest component in the newly formed Dominion of Canada, in which the company was the largest private landowner."

You'll see the article says they were the "de facto governement". And that's how I would see the Consortium operating, as a de facto government but not one laying claim to sovereignty. Under the Outer Space Treaty the USA could give the Consortium a "charter" to explore and exploit the resources of Mars and so open up the planet to development. Their Forts can be viewed as analogous to the bases that the Consortium will establish. There may have been no organised land claims, but it would have been clear what was controlled by the Company, and similarly that will be the case with the Consortium.

Void · 2012-06-05 23:09:36

A lonely post so far.

I myself think that if some entity should have the neccessary arrogance as to presume to dispense with portions of Mars, the needed conditions would be a promise to acomplish a certain amount of "Improvements" to the section of land. First a bidder would make a promise, or would state intention to fufill a requirment of improvement, and then they would be allowed to "Lease" a section of land with the promise of ownership if they fufill the promise.

I have little objection to the Hudson Bay company, who knows? Maybe it actually could be them in some cases.

Much of Mars should be off limits for some time however in my opinion. Just the places where we want alterations and settlements should be handled in the manner suggested above.

louis · 2012-06-06 02:11:32

Void wrote:

A lonely post so far.
I myself think that if some entity should have the neccessary arrogance as to presume to dispense with portions of Mars, the needed conditions would be a promise to acomplish a certain amount of "Improvements" to the section of land. First a bidder would make a promise, or would state intention to fufill a requirment of improvement, and then they would be allowed to "Lease" a section of land with the promise of ownership if they fufill the promise.
I have little objection to the Hudson Bay company, who knows? Maybe it actually could be them in some cases.
Much of Mars should be off limits for some time however in my opinion. Just the places where we want alterations and settlements should be handled in the manner suggested above.

I agree. There should not be a free for all. And as I have stated before the idea that the "Wild West" was a complete free for all is a misinterpretation of the historical facts.

RobS · 2012-06-07 06:27:08

I think it's fascinating to think that the company that settles Mars could end up being its biggest department store operator! Or more likely, it'd become the university and hospital, or something like that.

GW Johnson · 2012-06-07 09:18:40

The idea of a public-private venture of some sort to settle new places is a proven one. Besides the Hudson Bay Company, there were the British and the Dutch East India Companies. All of these were government-licensed monopolies. It worked then. Why not now?

GW

louis · 2012-06-07 13:43:07

GW Johnson wrote:

The idea of a public-private venture of some sort to settle new places is a proven one. Besides the Hudson Bay Company, there were the British and the Dutch East India Companies. All of these were government-licensed monopolies. It worked then. Why not now?
GW

Indeed!

Terraformer · 2012-06-07 14:21:10

Who's going to make parts off-limit though? I would think that China and Russia would take much umbridge with an American public-private partnership telling them that they're not allowed to colonise Mars...

I'd say, designate a few places Martian world heritage sites and allow a free for all everywhere else.

louis · 2012-06-07 18:14:53

Terraformer wrote:

Who's going to make parts off-limit though? I would think that China and Russia would take much umbridge with an American public-private partnership telling them that they're not allowed to colonise Mars...
I'd say, designate a few places Martian world heritage sites and allow a free for all everywhere else.

Yes some areas should certainly be heritage sites and protected from overdevelopment or pollution.

China and Russia would no doubt not attempt to plonk their bases in the middle of an already established site. IN this game, possession will be nine-tenths of the law. If land is taken up with PV panelling, habs, roads and the like, a kind of ownership by occupation will be established I think.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2012-06-05 07:09:04

Hudson's Bay Company - an interesting analogy?

#2 2012-06-05 23:09:36

Re: Hudson's Bay Company - an interesting analogy?

#3 2012-06-06 02:11:32

Re: Hudson's Bay Company - an interesting analogy?

#4 2012-06-07 06:27:08

Re: Hudson's Bay Company - an interesting analogy?

#5 2012-06-07 09:18:40

Re: Hudson's Bay Company - an interesting analogy?

#6 2012-06-07 13:43:07

Re: Hudson's Bay Company - an interesting analogy?

#7 2012-06-07 14:21:10

Re: Hudson's Bay Company - an interesting analogy?

#8 2012-06-07 18:14:53

Re: Hudson's Bay Company - an interesting analogy?

Board footer