A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

Scott Beach · 2017-02-25 19:12:53

Thomas Jefferson wrote that “laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.” The following “Constitution of Mars” is my attempt to write a constitution for Mars that will “keep pace with the times”.

DRAFT Constitution of Mars

Purpose. We, the undersigned, have executed this agreement for the purpose of establishing a government that will exercise dominion over the planet Mars.

Names. This agreement shall be known as the “Constitution of Mars” and may be hereinafter referred to as the “Constitution”. The government established by the Constitution shall be known as the “Government of Mars” and that government may be hereinafter referred to as the “Government”.

Commencement of Operations. The Government shall begin exercising dominion over Mars when two or more of the parties to this agreement are living on Mars and have declared that they are Citizens of Mars.

Motto. We recall the words of Henry David Thoreau. He wrote, “That government is best which governs least”. Thoreau’s written statement shall be the motto of the Government of Mars.

Permitted Acts. Acts that are not prohibited by law are permitted.

Scientocracy. The laws and policies of the Government of Mars shall, to the greatest possible extent, be based on experimentally verifiable data. The Government may be described as a “scientocracy”.

Behaviorology. Behavioral science is based on the theory that the behavior of an organism is determined by its physiology, its history of reinforcement and punishment, and its current environment. A human can use techniques based on that theory to shape his or her own behaviors. The members of a human society can, by the politically coordinated application of behavior shaping techniques, establish and maintain a society that closely approximates a perfect society, a utopia.

Social Control System. The children of Mars shall be taught how to use behavior shaping techniques to shape their own and each others behaviors. The Government may enact laws that prescribe and regulate the teaching of behavior shaping techniques.

to be continued…

Terraformer · 2017-02-26 05:37:32

It will be a brave, new, world.

What a terrible idea. Behaviourism was discredited a long time ago, and good riddance to it.

Besides, you're reliant upon the first two people on Mars being supporters. Someone else could get there first, plant their flag, and claim the whole planet before you.

louis · 2017-02-26 10:06:02

Mars will need a constitution.

Currently there is only the Outer Space Treaty to provide a legal framework for activities.

I imagine the early colony will be run on quasi-military lines, as are NASA's current and past space missions involving humans, with an appointed Commander, who has implicit powers.

I see progressive stages for Mars's political development:

Governor - Rule by an appointed governor (or base commander) operating under instructions from the Mars Consortium (Space X etc).

Governor plus advisors - Rule by an appointed governor with an appointed advisory council. This might be more appropriate once the colony grows to 200 plus.

Governor plus elected council - Rule by an appointed governor with an elected council (elected by the Aresian community). This would be appropriate for a community of over 1000.

Elected governor plus elected council - Maybe for a community of over 10,000. The Mars Consortium would probably still be represented through some form of "legate" or "commissioner" and perhaps the Consortium would retain veto power.

Full independence - there is no reason why a colony of 100,000 plus shouldn't be considered completely independent.

SpaceNut · 2017-02-26 10:36:18

Populations under 10,000 people would still not need any constitution as none of them will be of none permanent residency....

Scott Beach · 2017-02-26 10:39:25

Terraformer wrote:

Behaviourism was discredited a long time ago, and good riddance to it.

Terraformer: The people of “Comunidad de los Horcones” (State of Sonora, Mexico) are living proof that the members of a human society can apply behavior shaping techniques to each other and thereby build a very prosperous and peaceful community. That community was founded in 1971 and it is still operating today. Los Horcones is based on B. F. Skinner’s utopian novel Walden Two.

In most Western societies, children are told that they are inhabited by an entity (a supernatural soul or a metaphysical mind) that has a characteristic called “free will” and that society therefore has the right to reward some behaviors and to punish other behaviors. That system of social control has worked for many centuries but it is based on a fairy story (a lie).

This is the 21st century and it is time to tell children the truth: (1) The doctrine of free will is an ideology, not a scientific theory; and (2) The members of a human society can use behavior shaping techniques to create and maintain a peaceful and prosperous society.

Mars should have a constitution based on science, not on superstition and metaphysical mumbo jumbo. I believe that Thomas Jefferson would agree.

Void · 2017-02-26 11:41:28

Scott Beach said:

Terraformer: The people of “Comunidad de los Horcones” (State of Sonora, Mexico) are living proof that the members of a human society can apply behavior shaping techniques to each other and thereby build a very prosperous and peaceful community. That community was founded in 1971 and it is still operating today. Los Horcones is based on B. F. Skinner’s utopian novel Walden Two.
In most Western societies, children are told that they are inhabited by an entity (a supernatural soul or a metaphysical mind) that has a characteristic called “free will” and that society therefore has the right to reward some behaviors and to punish other behaviors. That system of social control has worked for many centuries but it is based on a fairy story (a lie).
This is the 21st century and it is time to tell children the truth: (1) The doctrine of free will is an ideology, not a scientific theory; and (2) The members of a human society can use behavior shaping techniques to create and maintain a peaceful and prosperous society.
Mars should have a constitution based on science, not on superstition and metaphysical mumbo jumbo. I believe that Thomas Jefferson would agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Horcones

Your utopia, exists in a situation where people who do not want to be involved can leave I presume. Otherwise it would be a cult, and a form of slavery.

The philosophy of the "Blank Slate" was already tried in the Soviet Union, and it failed.

So, I would allow this: You could set up one or more communities based on Los_Horcones patterns, but you could not impose it on the whole population of Mars. To be practical, it does not really matter what your desires would be in any case because the Martians would simply do what they wanted to, unless somehow some exterior force could impose control.

From my point of view, the model of the "Colonies of North America" make sense, as you can allow them to be different from each other. This will allow malcontents to move from a type of government/culture they are uncomfortable with to one they might prefer. This will save a lot of wasted time trying to make everyone comply with a monolithic cultural strait jacket.

This actually then provides for much greater adaptability for the whole Martian community.

An example of this can be seen in the interactions between the USA and the Commonwealth structure. They are not the same, but they help each other.

Our republic has a more benign environment due to the existence of the Commonwealth. As long as the Monarchy is not working to destroy our republic all is well. And it goes the other way as well. As long as we do not work to destroy the Monarchy/Commonwealth, our activities in general are useful to the Commonwealth.

We agree to be different, but to try to be compatible.

Last edited by Void (2017-02-26 11:54:56)

Scott Beach · 2017-02-26 13:25:14

The philosophy of the "Blank Slate" was already tried in the Soviet Union, and it failed.

Void: Modern behaviorists (who often refer to themselves as “behavior analysts”) acknowledge the existence of genetically programmed behaviors, such as breathing, coughing, yawning, suckling, and others. They use the term “innate behavior” to refer to genetically programmed behavior, and this may be about the same thing that ethologists mean when they use the term “instinct”.

Behavior analysis is far from being “discredited”. Please note that the Association for Behavior Analysis International has many thousands of members. ABAI will be holding its 43rd Annual Convention this May.

https://www.abainternational.org/events … -2017.aspx

The extent to which human social behavior is genetically programmed has been the subject of heated debates; see the controversy surrounding Edward O. Wilson’s “sociobiology”.

In the United States, the powers that be slammed “under God” into the “Pledge of Allegiance” to the flag of the United States of America. This made lots of people very angry. They did not like being forced to recite that pledge in public schools under the threat of being beaten bloody if they did not recite it. They did not like being forced under the threat of physical attack to profess that they believe in an invisible policeman in the sky.

Those same powers will want to use their power to threaten and beat the children of Mars. I believe that those evil and deluded thugs should not ever be allowed to set foot on Mars.

Last edited by Scott Beach (2017-02-26 14:06:40)

Scott Beach · 2017-02-26 15:06:04

Void wrote:

This will save a lot of wasted time trying to make everyone comply with a monolithic cultural strait jacket.

I included in the DRAFT constitution a provision that reads, “The Government may enact laws that prescribe and regulate the teaching of behavior shaping techniques.”

I firmly believe that the Government should prescribe the teaching of behavior shaping techniques so that people who do subscribe to the existence of different deities will be able to interact with each other without violence.

Just watch the television news any day and you are likely to see a report about people who subscribe to one religion slaughtering people who belong to a different religion. That is totally stupid. That sort of violence would not take place if children were taught how to interact with each other peacefully.

The alternative is having the “commander in chief” of one region of Mars sending his army into another region, bearing rile scopes that have Bible verses inscribed on them, or jihadis sneaking into a neighboring region of Mars and screaming “god is great” as they slaughter innocent people.

This sort of behavior would not happen on Mars if children are taught how to interact with each other by employing science-based techniques that work irrespective of a person’s religious beliefs.

Terraformer · 2017-02-26 15:37:49

Well, I vote we don't allow any people who want to control others to set foot on Mars. So that rules you out, Scott.

If your ideas are so great, they'll win out in the marketplace of ideas. Prove it first in your own colony, and then everyone else will follow if they want. But if you threaten others to try and get them to follow, expect to receive an abundance of iron, with speedy delivery from orbit.

Scott Beach · 2017-02-26 18:47:17

Terraformer wrote:

Well, I vote we don't allow any people who want to control others to set foot on Mars. So that rules you out, Scott.

The following statement is sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson…

"That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves."

https://www.monticello.org/site/jeffers … -quotation

This quote is not found in Jefferson’s writings. However, it is congruent with his political beliefs.

I am reciting this quote because I want you to understand that social control will be exercised one way or another. For example, in a totalitarian state the state will maintain a large, vigilant, and often brutal police force. In contrast, in a libertarian state, the people discipline themselves and the state can have a small police force.

In a totalitarian state, people may do only what the state specifically authorizes the people to do. In a libertarian state, people may do anything that is not prohibited by law. Please note that I have put that “libertarian state” principal into my DRAFT constitution.

Social control will be exercised one way or another. Or, if the system of social control breaks down, chaos begins and after about a week the chaos will include the practice of cannibalism. It was recently reported that in Venezuela people are eating dogs and cats and zoo animals. The eating of human corpses may be next and, if things get even worse, people will be hunted and killed by other people and the corpses of the hunted will be eaten while they are still warm.

The genetic fitness of Neanderthals has been judged to be relatively low. That finding did not surprise researchers because the Neanderthals were cannibals. Their habit of eating each other sharply limited the number of Neanderthals that could exist in a regional ecosystem. That situation led to lots of inbreeding and low genetic fitness.

We, the Homo sapiens sapiens, have an aversion to eating each other. We have been able to climb up the ladder of social complexity. We have built civilizations, including cities that house millions of people. We may be able to build cities on Luna and Mars if our social control systems continue to function at levels that make civilization possible.

In summary, a society’s system of social control must function one way or another (totalitarian or libertarian or something in between) or civilization will degenerate into chaos and cannibalism. I believe that Mars should have a “libertarian” government that maintains a small police force. However, that will only be possible if Martians have the skill to discipline themselves and if they exercise that skill.

Void · 2017-02-26 21:52:02

Scott Beach said:

The genetic fitness of Neanderthals has been judged to be relatively low. That finding did not surprise researchers because the Neanderthals were cannibals. Their habit of eating each other sharply limited the number of Neanderthals that could exist in a regional ecosystem. That situation led to lots of inbreeding and low genetic fitness.
We, the Homo sapiens sapiens, have an aversion to eating each other. We have been able to climb up the ladder of social complexity. We have built civilizations, including cities that house millions of people. We may be able to build cities on Luna and Mars if our social control systems continue to function at levels that make civilization possible.

Bull Shit!

Cannibalism and "Modern" humans:

Cannibalism of New Zealanders:
http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarl … d2-d3.html
Europeans and Cannibalism:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … claim.html
List of incidents of Cannibalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_i … annibalism

Great Famine of 1315–17
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

From the Apocalypse in a Biblia Pauperum illuminated at Erfurt around the time of the Great Famine. Death sits astride a manticore whose long tail ends in a ball of flame (Hell). Famine points to her hungry mouth.
The Great Famine of 1315–1317 (occasionally dated 1315–1322) was the first of a series of large-scale crises that struck Europe early in the fourteenth century. Most of Europe (extending east to Russia and south to Italy) was affected.[1] The famine caused millions of deaths over an extended number of years and marked a clear end to the period of growth and prosperity from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries.
The Great Famine started with bad weather in spring 1315. Global crop failures lasted through 1316 until the summer harvest in 1317, and Europe did not fully recover until 1322. The period was marked by extreme levels of crime, disease, mass death and even cannibalism and infanticide. The crisis had consequences for the Church, state, European society, and for future calamities to follow in the fourteenth century.

Middle Ages[edit]
Crusaders were rumored to have practiced cannibalism during the Siege of Ma'arra.[3]
For a brief time in Europe, an unusual form of cannibalism occurred when thousands of Egyptian mummies preserved in bitumen were ground up and sold as medicine.[4] The practice developed into a widespread business that flourished until the late 16th century. (As late as the early 19th century, mummies were still believed to have styptic properties against bleeding and were sold as pharmaceuticals in powdered form.[5]). This "fad" ended when the mummies were revealed actually to be recently killed slaves.
The Great Famine of 1315–17 was marked with extreme levels of cannibalism.
Several works by Michel de Montaigne and Jean de Léry, among others, indicated that the Tupinambá tribe practiced cannibalism.[6][7]
The Akokisa and Atakapa people of modern-day Texas practiced cannibalism.[8][9]
Island Caribs practiced ritualistic cannibalism.[10]
The Wari' people practiced endocannibalism, specifically mortuary cannibalism.[11]
Numerous incidents of cannibalism were recorded during the drought of 1200–1201 in the Nile river region.[12]
Cannibalism was widely practiced among the Aztecs.[13]
In 1503, a group of Qizilbash militants ate the corpses of their enemies after taking over a fort in east Iran.[14]
The Korowai people claimed to have continued practising cannibalism into the present day, as part of an attempt to encourage tourism.[15]
Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca along with other Spanish conquistadors committed cannibalism in the aftermath of a shipwreck.[16]

OK, as for the fitness of Neanderthals:
Probably there were never more than 100,000 of them or so. The lands they lived in did not have climates to support large populations. The likelihood is that as southern humans moved in they diluted the Neanderthal gene pool.
Further, it appears the hybrids of southern and Neanderthal humans did not work out very well. A lot of the Neanderthal got left behind, most likely because of the lack of fitness of hybrids originally, and the continued dilution of the Neanderthal gene pool.

I my self am slightly more the 4% Neanderthal, which I am told is fairly high. There are some with more, but I don't think anyone reaches 5%.

So, who are these Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Europeans tend to be part Neanderthal. Asians tend to be part Denisovian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan

So, here is a question...It is an awkward one....If Neanderthal and Denisovian genes are so bad, how come technological activity seems to be so concentrated in places where Denisovian and Neanderthal genetic remnants exist?

As for your Homo people coming from down south, I have to say I would not put it at all out of question that they made a habit of killing and even eating Neanderthals, and Denisovians.

I have shown you that Cannibalism is evident in the last 500 years, and no pure blooded Neanderthals or Denisovians are evident as existing later than what? 40,000 - 50,000 years ago.

So, don't make claims in the manner you did. It shows that you don't have a proper ability to look though things. You just make assumptions and assertions, and I am supposed to see it your way.

No, I don't.

Last edited by Void (2017-02-26 22:13:25)

Scott Beach · 2017-02-27 00:42:58

Void wrote:

If Neanderthal and Denisovian genes are so bad, how come technological activity seems to be so concentrated in places where Denisovian and Neanderthal genetic remnants exist?

I have read that Homo sapiens sapiens received and kept the Neanderthal genes that protected Neanderthals from infectious diseases that were prevalent in Europe. That is the kind of "natural selection" that you would expect to happen.

If an adult male Neanderthal named Robert is in the habit of killing (and perhaps eating) all other adult male Neanderthals who come close enough to copulate Robert’s daughters then the daughters might begin to copulate with their brothers. That is the kind of breeding pattern that could lead to low population density and low genetic fitness in Neanderthal populations.

You seem to be imputing to me the assertion that Homo sapiens sapiens never ever engage in cannibalism. However, I acknowledge that H.s.s. do sometimes engage in cannibalism. But I am not aware that cannibalism has been extensive enough to cause the crash and dissolution of any modern civilization.

The failure of an extraterrestrial society’s system of social control would probably be lethal for most or all of the members of that society. Space habitats will be comparatively fragile. If the people in such habitats start using modern projectile weapons to attack each other then the air inside the habitats could be lost, leading to the death of all the inhabitants.

In addition to teaching Martian children how to use behavior shaping techniques on themselves and others, those children should be taught how to calm themselves with meditation. Being able to remain calm and breathe slowly could be very advantageous during an emergency situation in a space settlement.

louis · 2017-02-27 02:22:24

How did you get on to cannibalism? lol

I don't think we have much to fear from that.

But in terms of founding a libertarian community, that will be nigh on impossible in my view. Take one of the simplest of liberties - the right to walk out of your residence and move around your country...that "right" will not exist on Mars because it cannot, it would be way too dangerous to give individuals control over entering and exiting the base. This is because the life support systems are delicate and living in a pressurised environment means that without strict observance of rules, everyone's life is in danger. It's somewhat analogous to being on a plane...you don't have the liberty to try and exit the cabin and your rights are severely restricted.

Of course, things may change as the colony grows. I think Musk's "homesteader" vision is naive at this stage but ultimately it may prove doable. People may be able to purchase "life support system" packages that give them the freedom to set up their own residences anywhwere on the planet. But for at least the first few decades, this is going to be a very rule-bound community operating in a co-ordinated and collectivist manner under the overall direction of a commander or a small board of directors.
It's not going to be the Wild West. It's going to be a cross between an Antarctic base, a university campus and a factory.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-27 09:12:23

louis wrote:

How did you get on to cannibalism? lol
I don't think we have much to fear from that.
But in terms of founding a libertarian community, that will be nigh on impossible in my view. Take one of the simplest of liberties - the right to walk out of your residence and move around your country...that "right" will not exist on Mars because it cannot, it would be way too dangerous to give individuals control over entering and exiting the base. This is because the life support systems are delicate and living in a pressurised environment means that without strict observance of rules, everyone's life is in danger. It's somewhat analogous to being on a plane...you don't have the liberty to try and exit the cabin and your rights are severely restricted.
Of course, things may change as the colony grows. I think Musk's "homesteader" vision is naive at this stage but ultimately it may prove doable. People may be able to purchase "life support system" packages that give them the freedom to set up their own residences anywhwere on the planet. But for at least the first few decades, this is going to be a very rule-bound community operating in a co-ordinated and collectivist manner under the overall direction of a commander or a small board of directors.
It's not going to be the Wild West. It's going to be a cross between an Antarctic base, a university campus and a factory.

So basically you are saying the colonists will be prisoners. Well if we're going in that direction, why not just set up a penal colony? So are you saying life support systems can't be mass produced in factories at low cost?

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-02-27 09:14:30

Scott Beach wrote:

Terraformer wrote:
Behaviourism was discredited a long time ago, and good riddance to it.
Terraformer: The people of “Comunidad de los Horcones” (State of Sonora, Mexico) are living proof that the members of a human society can apply behavior shaping techniques to each other and thereby build a very prosperous and peaceful community. That community was founded in 1971 and it is still operating today. Los Horcones is based on B. F. Skinner’s utopian novel Walden Two.
In most Western societies, children are told that they are inhabited by an entity (a supernatural soul or a metaphysical mind) that has a characteristic called “free will” and that society therefore has the right to reward some behaviors and to punish other behaviors. That system of social control has worked for many centuries but it is based on a fairy story (a lie).
This is the 21st century and it is time to tell children the truth: (1) The doctrine of free will is an ideology, not a scientific theory; and (2) The members of a human society can use behavior shaping techniques to create and maintain a peaceful and prosperous society.
Mars should have a constitution based on science, not on superstition and metaphysical mumbo jumbo. I believe that Thomas Jefferson would agree.

If you want to turn humans into programmable robots, why not just use robots in the first place?

Scott Beach · 2017-02-27 10:39:30

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

If you want to turn humans into programmable robots, why not just use robots in the first place?

Are "programmable robots" capable of passing a self-recognition test?

http://www.animalcognition.org/2015/04/ … rror-test/

Do "programmable robots" adopt constitutions?

Terraformer · 2017-02-27 11:00:21

If my colony breaks down because we don't have a behaviourist government, no-one but us dies. So why are you so averse to letting anyone experiment?

Your constitution will go exactly the same way as the Inter caetera that gave the New World to Spain and Portugal. No-one is going to listen to your protests that you own the planet - and you're putting yourself in the situation where you have to acknowledge the claim of the first person to arrive there.

If you want to try setting up a behaviourist colony on Mars though, go ahead when we get to that point. If it gets the point where very few people are choosing to leave, whether born there or immigrants, then you might be on the something.

So draft your colony's constitution, but calling it a Martian constitution would be akin to France adopting a "Eurasian constitution" that only applies to itself.

Scott Beach · 2017-02-27 12:26:54

Terraformer wrote:

Your constitution will go exactly the same way as the Inter caetera that gave the New World to Spain and Portugal.

I am drafting a "Constitution of Mars" with the intention of asking the United Nations to ratify that Constitution. The ratification might be in the form of an amendment to the Outer Space Treaty.

The history of human civilizations contains dozens, hundreds, thousands of accounts of Hindus slaughtering Moslems, Moslems slaughtering Christians, Christians slaughtering Jews, Jews slaughtering Moslems, etc, etc, etc. Let’s stop this senseless slaughter. Let’s agree to teach our children how to create and maintain stable sociocultural systems that are based on science (a body of knowledge obtained and tested by use of the scientific method).

Perhaps the Constitution of Mars should contain an article which declares that the Government of Mars shall be a secular government.

Terraformer · 2017-02-27 12:51:30

Why don't you prove your society works *before* trying to impose it on everyone else?

We've had utopians come along before with their secular governments. It ended badly.

If your idea is so great, go and prove it. Once you've done that, then I'll listen.

Scott Beach · 2017-02-27 13:54:56

An addition to the DRAFT constitution first presented above…

Secularity. The Government of Mars shall be a secular government. The Government may establish a corporation that owns places where associations of religious Citizens may temporarily display religious scenes and symbols. The members of the corporation’s governing body shall be appointed or elected in accordance with laws enacted by the Government.
__________

The inspiration for this constitutional provision is the Florida corporation named “Scripps Florida Funding Corporation”.

http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/Corpor … 0001169090

As an example, the corporation might allow a Christian group to display a "Nativity" scene for a week or two.

Terraformer · 2017-02-27 14:29:26

Why would you need that? They can just buy a place and display the symbols themselves. There's no need for the government to own any places.

Scott Beach · 2017-02-27 15:02:37

The Regents of the University of California is a nonprofit California corporation. The Regents was organized as a corporation in order to prevent the faculty and curriculum of the University of California (a public trust) from becoming political footballs.

The State Bar of California is a public corporation, and a controversy related to that corporation went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The placement of Nativity scenes on state capitol grounds has been an issue that has been heard in courts of law in numerous states. Lets avoid all of that silly litigation. Let a publicly regulated private corporation handle the displays.

Jefferson thought that there should be a high wall of separation between church and state. I agree. Sometimes it is wise to not have the government directly involved in an issue. The Government of Mars can appoint Hindus and Moslems and Jews and Christians, etc. to the corporation’s board of directors and those directors will have to compromise and peacefully work out a displays schedule.

RobertDyck · 2017-02-27 16:01:59

In thread Corporate Government I proposed a simpler system. The Government of Mars would have two levels: "National" and City. Actually I said "Federal" and City, but many pointed out what I propose is a unitary government, not federal. Under my proposal the national government would have jurisdiction over the entire surface of Mars. From pole to pole, from the prime meridian around the equator to the prime meridian, down to the core of the planet, all atmosphere, orbital space, and even both moons. Everything. There would be no states, no provinces, no counties, no shires, no "oblast" (a Soviet designation), no anything. Only one national government, and cities. The cities would not be allowed to claim territory as vast as a state or county, only as large as a city.

National laws would be very simple: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, other than that you're pretty much on your own. Of course there are details: assault, battery, armed robbery, break-enter-and-theft, embezzlement, etc. Once lawyers get involved something simple becomes very complex. The goal is to make this the ultimate Libertarian paradise.

Cities will not be allowed to possess weapons of war. I didn't say they can't have side arms; if a city chooses to arm their police force with police revolvers, that's their decision. But no tanks, no fighter jets, no military assault rifles. One purpose of the national government will be to prevent war. No war allowed on Mars. The only military allowed will be the one of the national government.

Details like social organization or religion would be left to individual communities/towns/cities. That means stuff that Scott Beach proposes could be done in one individual town. If Scott wants to found a town on Mars to do this, he's entitled to do so. But just a town, not the whole planet. If he can grow is little settlement to become a town then a city, more power to him.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-02-27 23:28:37)

Scott Beach · 2017-02-27 18:47:22

RobertDyck wrote:

Details like social organization or religion would be left to individual communities/towns/cities. That means stuff that Scott Beach proposes could be done in one individual town.

To keep things simple, there might be one Religious Displays Corporation, which has a principal office located in the capital city of Mars. The Corporation could, by resolution, vest in each municipal (city) government the authority to adopt an ordinance that allows the city to establish a Religious Displays Council. Each Council could adopt a religious displays schedule for the coming year. Each schedule would become effective at the beginning of the coming year. However, the Religious Displays Corporation would be empowered to protect the rights of religious minorities and might veto and revise a schedule that appears to be unfair. Hopefully, this sort of veto and revision would not happen very often. But the fact that it could happen will make religious majorities respect the rights of religious minorities.

RobertDyck · 2017-02-28 00:21:07

You're making a big deal out of religion. If I were in charge, the capital city would be built by the corporation that runs the Mars Colonial Transport. Citizens would pay for a ticket to Mars in Earth currency, but the spacecraft would by supplied and maintained by Mars. Propellant would be produced either on Mars, one of its moons, or an asteroid. So once the system is set up, no Earth currency to operate/maintain it. That means ticket price pays for shuttle transport to Earth orbit (assuming the Mars Colonial Transport is parked there), advertising, and most importantly repaying investors.

The capital city would be built by the Corporation. It would recruit new arrivals to work for the corporation. This city will have to mine, smelt, refine, and manufacture spare parts for repairs and maintenance of the ship. It will also have to provide food and supplies. And it will have to produce what the city needs to operate. The capital city will sell habitats for those wanting to establish a homestead in the "Outback" to use an Australian term. That will have to include life support.

The capital city will be commercial. And initial settlers will be scientists and engineers. I don't see them being religious at all. Towns could advertise themselves in the capital city, but I don't envision any religious stuff. And you certainly don't want to control people, no statist stuff.

There are people willing to sell their house, sell their car, liquidate their life insurance and pension, all for a ticket to Mars. Mars One got an indication just how many there are. These people are willing to do this specifically to get away from the unreasonable excessive overbearing regulation that exists on Earth today. If you duplicate all that unreasonable excessive overbearing regulation on Mars, then why would anyone want to go? Considering the corporation will get most of its money from tickets for settlers, they would certainly want to maintain the romantic allure of Mars. No taxes, and freedom from social engineers who want to treat people as automatons. If you want to establish Salt Lake City Mars (Salt Planetia City?) then go ahead. But it won't be the capital city.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2017-02-25 19:12:53

A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#2 2017-02-26 05:37:32

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#3 2017-02-26 10:06:02

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#4 2017-02-26 10:36:18

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#5 2017-02-26 10:39:25

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#6 2017-02-26 11:41:28

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#7 2017-02-26 13:25:14

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#8 2017-02-26 15:06:04

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#9 2017-02-26 15:37:49

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#10 2017-02-26 18:47:17

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#11 2017-02-26 21:52:02

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#12 2017-02-27 00:42:58

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#13 2017-02-27 02:22:24

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#14 2017-02-27 09:12:23

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#15 2017-02-27 09:14:30

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#16 2017-02-27 10:39:30

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#17 2017-02-27 11:00:21

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#18 2017-02-27 12:26:54

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#19 2017-02-27 12:51:30

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#20 2017-02-27 13:54:56

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#21 2017-02-27 14:29:26

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#22 2017-02-27 15:02:37

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#23 2017-02-27 16:01:59

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#24 2017-02-27 18:47:22

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

#25 2017-02-28 00:21:07

Re: A Constitution of Mars; Scientocracy

Board footer