Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-08 01:45:31

colonization of the Americas payed for itself by hugely lucrative exports of tobacco, sugar, fur and indigo

That was the corporate and business part to colonization, but what about the pioneer part? Don't you recall the Plymouth Colony? Indeed, it was a failure from the business perspective, at least for the Mayflower (even from a colonization point of view a lot of people died, it was a rough trip).

But, the Plymouth Colony, for the most part, had no dependence and was not controlled by her mother country. Food was provided by the land, indeed, one of the earliest harvest is the basis for our American Thanksgiving tradition.

I can only imagine what kinds of traditions the first Martian colonies will have.

What will the Mars colony be exporting in exchange for the substantial amounts of sophisticated merchandise it needs just to sustain itself?

The same stuff the Pilgrims exported! I'm not saying that their won't be corporate attempts (I won't argue if they'd be successful or not), but I think that along with those attempts, there will be Pilgrim-style attempts. Where people life off the land, if you will.

There are many threads here about sustaining ones self on Mars, I would suggest ploppng over to the 115 years thread, to get a good idea of what we could have set up. A techno-biosphere, if you will, could keep us sustained, once we got there. Just like axes, shovels, guns, and ammo kept the Pilgrim's sustained.

Martian cultivated cabbages just won't do.

Bah, humbug. Why not? Are you not a Mars enthusiast?! I'm going to start questioning peoples loyality to the Mars Society (or just the idea of colonizing Mars in general) if they keep saying stuff like that!!

Well then, trash the bureacracy and change the priorities. A mission to Mars is a political matter.

Ahah, you try getting rid of bureacrats! I personally, could care less about a tax-funded, nationalistic, mission to Mars. I would enjoy having a good level of space infrastructure built, instead. A good fast transport system is all you need. Like the ships that sailed the ocean in the Pilgrims days We're going to need something similar.

And it could be a long way off, if we don't get human interest in space spurring again.

I don't know, maybe you are right. I won't turn this discussion into a dispute over semantics though.

Sorry, I pulled that line on several people on this forum a few times as it is, don't let it turn you off. I just think that generally speaking, supplies and similar shipments aren't necessary when you have the resources of a whole world at your disposal.

They weren't for the Pilgrims when they had a whole country at their disposal.

Gennaro · 2003-04-08 04:54:31

As for "Plymouth", self sustainability is an important goal as evidenced only from a lot of posts only in this forum (and you can count on that I'm all for it), but it will only be achieved gradually and even then, self sustainability is not the same as a positive balance of trade.
The question remains, what will the martians have to offer in return for imported goods? Seen as a free market venture, what's in it for Terran capitalists?
From a purely economical point of view, asteroid mining for rare minerals and solar power utilization in near Earth space seems to me a more promising perspective than colonizing Mars, at least in the short to medium perspective, yet even in this case it has proved exceedingly difficult to attract private capital.

The comparison of America to Mars is actually completely reversed. In the case of the American colonies, huge profits could be engendered with a minimum of time, effort and investment. Simple people could set up businesses in the new world with a minimum of preparation, the labour of which transformed into material values, flowed back and benefitted the mother country. The cost of emigration was more or less that of ballast. I forgot to mention that timber, grain, fish and iron were also major export articles, readily extractable. In the case of Mars only the arrangement of adequate infrastructure to remain alive on the surface is an enourmous financial undertaking. Who will fund it?
Private capital is not good at providing infrastructure as experience shows. It's prime concern is the upcoming quarterly balance sheet. It's all about putting money where it will provide the biggest profits in the shortest time. Even in the United States the wise Washington agreed to print money provided it went into infrastructure, getting it locked there so it wouldn't cause inflation, which in turn private enterprise could benefit from. Free market forces proved insufficient for sustainable growth without political interference.
Same thing applies to space. First the infrastructure must be put into place and only then might private capital be interested in establishing itself. And in the case of Mars there is still the question what will be produced and traded. For the foreseeable future, I mean.
I firmly believe in colonizing Mars as beneficial to humanity as I do exploitation of near Earth surroundings. But in the case of Mars we should be happy with only the emergence of two parallell economies that will not have very much to do with each other. That is freeing Mars from one sided economical dependence on Earth.
I can see no other agency to undertake these developments than stable and strong willed governments. Only political agencies are potentially free from the short sighted constraints of profit making competitive business.

Food for thought: The United States made it to the Moon in less than nine years because of an explicit, political aim. The space program started to crumble in the early seventies. Exactly at the same time as state driven keynesianism was replaced by the principles of free market neo-liberalism.

Concerning martian lettuce:

Bah, humbug. Why not? Are you not a Mars enthusiast?! I'm going to start questioning peoples loyality to the Mars Society (or just the idea of colonizing Mars in general) if they keep saying stuff like that!!

He, he, maybe it's time to introduce a marxist-leninist maoist appeal for the tolerance of constructive criticism? "Oh my God, an infidel, stone him!"

clark · 2003-04-08 06:43:41

The question remains, what will the martians have to offer in return for imported goods?

And a question to consider is what exactly they would have to import. If the goods are small, marginal- basic sundries, cost becomes a matter of launch costs...

Now wait a sec!

Launch costs determine the economics of this entire show, right?

We view the cost as a function of launch costs. But what would be the reality of launch costs with a colony on Mars?

An actual colony on Mars would require some bit of investment in our launch capabilities on Earth. The act of going to Mars should make it less costly to support people on Mars.

Seen as a free market venture, what's in it for Terran capitalists?

None. Move on.

From a purely economical point of view, asteroid mining for rare minerals and solar power utilization in near Earth space seems to me a more promising perspective than colonizing Mars, at least in the short to medium perspective, yet even in this case it has proved exceedingly difficult to attract private capital.

Because the research for practical ways to extract the resources is not complete, or hasn't even been atempted. Then there is the matter of selling it to someone- most minerals in space are only valuable in space. Their value lies in where they are, more than what they are composed of.

Secondly, LEO, GEO,a nd Luna development will create economic opportunity on Mars- Mars makes sense once you start looking at Lunar-Mars, or Mars-Asteroid economic relationships.

From a purely economical point of view, asteroid mining for rare minerals and solar power utilization in near Earth space seems to me a more promising perspective than colonizing Mars, at least in the short to medium perspective, yet even in this case it has proved exceedingly difficult to attract private capital.

Whoever has the money. My question though, who gets to decide who goes? If it takes 270 million Americans to put 12 people on Mars, who decides who those 12 are? A colony is an even bigger can of worms, imo.

He, he, maybe it's time to introduce a marxist-leninist maoist appeal for the tolerance of constructive criticism? "Oh my God, an infidel, stone him!"

We don't stone here. Just good ol fashioned burnings.
"Now burn the heretic! Burn him!"

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-04-08 14:57:23

Well, I think there is good evidence to suggest that the most pressing problem right now with how the space agency is organized is that Congress, and hence the NASA administration that it selects, is beholden to huge buisness interests which see little value in long term exploration and which are exploiting the space agency for their own private profit, in the form of huge pork barrel extravaganzas which do very little in the way of real science or exploration for their cost. So for example, why haven't we developed something to replace the ridiculously expensive space shuttle? Why are we developing an ISS which does almost nothing for, as conservative estimates put it, some $60 billion? Why aren't we spending more on projects which are really going to do something, like robotic planetary exploration and precursors to human missions? I think all of this is good evidence for the conclusion that right now the central purpose of NASA is not to explore or do science, but rather to funnel cash into the pockets of huge corporations, the front runners Boeing and Lockheed Martin. This idea is also backed up by the realities of election spending: buisness, as a bloc, funds almost three quarters of election money in the United States. I would expect big buisness to be a large proportion of that, with results which are not very suprising.

In any case, the "free market" is not something which has long term space exploration as a goal ; they're interested in profit, that's essentially the alpha and the omega for them, because the relevant guys are big corporations and if it wasn't they wouldn't be big, or mabye even exist. So these corporations have, basically, one goal: they're going to bilk the system for whatever they can get, and they're going to do it at a minimum cost to themselves. If you want to make them do space exploration, then you have to provide them some incentive to do it. They're not going to do it on their own, because the incentive just isn't there, there is no short term profitability, we know that. Let's be honest: there's no money in interplanetary space exploration right now. There might be decades down the line, but there isn't any right now. So Zubrin is right when he says that without some kind of government initiative, it isn't going to happen.

So what is our role? We just have to keep pushing them, I guess. Keep demanding they open a serious initiative, keep demanding more funds for useful projects like robotic interplanetary probes, a cheap new launch vehicle, etc. Scale down use of the space shuttle to an absolute minimum, cancelling it and replacing it with cheaper alternatives asap. As for the ISS, I suspect the only sensible way to deal with this is just to scrap it. At present it's a total waste, as I understand it. Expanding it will take years, and tens of billions, and even then, it's liable to be mostly a waste. So I think we should scrap it, and do it as soon as possible, and divert the excess funds into projects which are actually useful.

I think I'll post a copy of this at "Human Missions", too, so the more technical people can see it.

clark · 2003-04-08 15:06:07

summary of previous post:

-NASA is the teet upon which Big Business suckles.

-There is no profit in exploration, Uncle Sam is our only hope.

-The Shuttle fleet, the basis of American access to Space, needs to go.

-ISS, an international project of a scale never before attempted, should be ditched in an ocean like trash.

Bah.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-04-08 15:29:29

The Shuttle fleet is the basis, right now, of American human access to space, that's true, but everyone agrees that sooner or later, it's got to be scrapped, if for no other reason that that it's getting too old. Right now we are just wasting our money putting humans into space for very little return in exploration or science. We need to stop clinging to this idea that somehow randomly putting humans on orbit so they can sit around and do experiments any decent robotic mission could do is going to help space exploration. It isn't, it's huge a waste. Either we ought to do useful human missions or ought not to be doing them.

You can build pyramids on the slopes of Mt. Everest and call that a great international project on a scale never before attempted, but it's not very useful, I think.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-08 20:46:16

[Self sustainability] will only be achieved gradually and even then [it] not the same as a positive balance of trade.

What is the result of a positive balance of trade? And how would it be better (if that's what you're implying) than self sustainablity?

Couldn't we conceivably have a Martian society of Reds who declare complete and utter independence from Earth? No immigration allowed, no Earth-style cultural symbols or traditions, etc.

And on what basis is a gradual transition to self sustainablity? I think it's a prerequisite for colonization, myself.

Seen as a free market venture, what's in it for Terran capitalists?

Almost nothing. I've brought this up many times before on these forums (we've had this discussion several times). Resources on Mars are pretty much Mars' resources, and no one elses. As you point out, wisely, might I add, the asteriods would be the cheapest place to get resources. They're not in a large gravity well, and they're orbiting the sun. And though clark has a point that we don't know how to extract those resources, we wouldn't know how to extract Martian or Luna or any other resources which are in a near vaccume, in an environment incapable of directly supporting humans, so it's not really valid. We're still going to have hurdles to get over (but the technology to do so isn't far off).

In the case of Mars only the arrangement of adequate infrastructure to remain alive on the surface is an enourmous financial undertaking. Who will fund it?

Though I understand your comments about American colonists, I think you missed the point, that there were still individuals who were living off the land and doing things their own way, with little to no financial connection to their place of origin. So... whoever has the money, will fund it.

For the sake of argument; if the Mars Society were to build something along the lines of Biosphere III, and were to sell that technology out to foreign investors (I can see 3rd world countries benefitting from such technology), the money from that investment could go into paying for the transportation to get to Mars. Since we'd already perfected the ?adequate infrastructure to remain alive on the surface? all we would need is the transportation. Indeed, that money could go into building NTRs or other such transportation mediums.

One must note that profiting isn't our goal, explicitly. Getting to Mars is our goal. I think we can run more efficiently than a company which is attempting to achieve the same goals.

foadi · 2003-04-11 12:29:38

I believe that people who call themselves anarchists would like this party.

Statism is statism.

Living Free,

- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani

Gennaro · 2003-04-14 13:00:32

Alexander Sheppard, thanks for an interesting post. I haven't discussed this subject till boredom at least. Thought provoking in many ways.
You are of course referring to an American situation, but I suspect elements of it adhere to every space agency under the current order of things. My hope is that China, Russia, India and Europe at least won't thread down the exact same path (if that's not happened already).

Josh Cryer,

What is the result of a positive balance of trade? And how would it be better (if that's what you're implying) than self sustainablity?

- I'm not implying it would be better, I'm just pointing out that there's no incentive for free market driven space exploration/colonization, unlike the case of the Americas in the 16-19th centuries. (Easy money was the thing that made the new world going, no matter what crazy religious fringe group we might wish to put up as an example of ideal pioneers.) A lot of people seem to put their hopes on private initiative while they are heckling the state. I find this approach counter productive and kind of barking up the wrong tree.
Considering the scope and energy needed to break us free from orbit, it will realistically entail a state/socialist approach, free market liberalism simply won't get us nowhere.
That's not to say that state funding won't pay off eventually, at least in some areas. If government spending, in the end, is the only way to stimulate the economy, raising the demand for labour and hence wages (to speak with Mr Adam Smith) and floating technology in order to increase productivity in the civilian sector, you might just as well put the money into something lucrative, like solar power satellites, rather than essentially worthless, unproductive military junk.

Couldn't we conceivably have a Martian society of Reds who declare complete and utter independence from Earth? No immigration allowed, no Earth-style cultural symbols or traditions, etc

- Alright, but why "Reds", why not Blacks or Greens or Purples? Being European, I've developed something of a neuralgia to hammers and sickles. Oh, you just wrote no terran symbols, excuse me, I overlooked! (No, it's not really the hammers and sickles either, it's a kind of thinking or sentiment so 'positive' and 'righteous' and inept, it leads to sectarian flavoured mass murder, that I detest. I've got no problem with either red stars or napoleonic eagles, really. And if the martian colony is not to adhere to any terran culture, what culture will it have? Of course the martian culture, even if it evolves along new and unchartered paths, will have discernible roots. I see no point in denying who you are.)

And on what basis is a gradual transition to self sustainablity? I think it's a prerequisite for colonization, myself.

- Okay, I started off writing that a Mars colony would have to be tax funded for generations. I admit that maybe I was exaggerating. I tried to get a point across.

Though I understand your comments about American colonists, I think you missed the point, that there were still individuals who were living off the land and doing things their own way, with little to no financial connection to their place of origin. So... whoever has the money, will fund it.

- Well, if we could find a way to finance it, count me in!
One might bear in mind though that if the Mars Society would be going to Mars by its own means, it will constitute a kind of political entity and a mini state unto itself (although international in origin). All hail king Zubrin of Arcadia!
:;):

One must note that profiting isn't our goal, explicitly. Getting to Mars is our goal. I think we can run more efficiently than a company which is attempting to achieve the same goals.

- I agree.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-15 22:42:00

Gennaro,

I'm not implying it would be better, I'm just pointing out that there's no incentive for free market driven space exploration/colonization, unlike the case of the Americas in the 16-19th centuries.

Oh, I know, it's tough for people to sell this view of a free market solar system, too. They try but they fail pretty badly. Throw in the magic of technology, and bam, we're on a time/energy economy.

But okay, not to ramble off on another tangent, I get your point. Yes, certainly, the Americas were founded on a lot of people who wanted to get rich. But there's no real rule saying that motivation won't occur. Contrary to popular belief, people don't do things because there's some magical incentive for them; if that was the case, when everyone retired they would commit suicide or something stupid like that.

[...] you might just as well put the money into something lucrative, like solar power satellites, rather than essentially worthless, unproductive military junk.

I totally agree with you. But put on your tin foil hat, please. Militarization of space is the prerequsite for that whole, free market foldera. If the military owns the tranport mediums, the fuel mediums, and so on and so forth, profit can be insured.

Alright, but why "Reds", why not Blacks or Greens or Purples?

Well, they're called Reds because they love Mars ?as it is.? KSR first coined the term, I believe, for these strict Mars-environmentalists. It's pretty much a commonly known term around here.

I'm sure they would coin their own term for themselves, as clark likes to fool with people, calling Martians, Mars'ans.

Of course the martian culture, even if it evolves along new and unchartered paths, will have discernible roots.

Sure it will, but most Terran symbols are of Terra, not Mars. Anything of Terra is evil, since it could spur revolutionaries who want to terraform. Terraforming is a Bad Thing ? to these Reds, and they'll do anything they can to keep it from occuring. This is why Terran cultural symbols, and indeed, Terran contact itself, is cut off.

To these Reds, Terra would not even exist, and any cultural roots from Terra, would seem like they were orignally Red. Terra would be the blue dot in the sky where evil demons lived or something.

Anyway, we're kind of digressing. I was just saying.

Well, if we could find a way to finance it, count me in!

Certainly! Have you paid your yearly dues? :;):

[T]he Mars Society [...] constitutes [...] a mini state unto itself.

Ahh, this is necessarily true. The question, is once we get there, does it need to be run like a State?

All hail king Zubrin of Arcadia!

AHAH! I hail no man as greater than another!

dicktice · 2003-04-16 08:13:16

Gennaro: I like to think of myself as being quite unprejudiced and tolerant but ... I'm afraid I'd have to draw the line at (ugh) purple!

Pat Galea · 2003-09-11 06:34:56

If, for example, you caused someones death from unsanitary food preparation you should be punished.
Fat lot of good that does me, the person who ate the hamburger. I'm dead now.

clark, some of your arguments are good, some are not so good (IMHO).

However, this one is just a bit unfair. You can make that argument against absolutely any system whatsoever.

No matter what protections or regulations you put in place, you can't actually stop someone from committing, or at least attempting to commit a crime. The most you can hope to do is to try to catch them at it, or planning it, and make a believable promise to catch and punish them if they do manage it.

---

As a further aside (nothing to do with this post), someone said above that one of the tenets of libertarianism is "do not lie".

I ain't ever heard that one before, and in fact I don't think it's right. There are many times when it's absolutely right to lie, or at least not wrong to do so. What you can't do is lie about something you're offering in trade i.e. misrepresenting attributes of whatever it is you're selling. That's plain and simple fraud. But there's no problem with lying about (for example) your age, or the number of indoor lavatories in your house, in answer to a casual enquiry.

Palomar · 2003-09-11 06:52:49

*Hey Pat! Long time no see. And just the other day I was recalling (in preparation for this anniversary date of 9/11) the exchanges you, Phobos, Shaun, and myself (and perhaps a few other folks) had regarding your having been in New York the day prior to 9/11/01. I hope I'm recalling that correctly.

Sorry to get off-topic.

And don't be a stranger, Pat. :;):

--Cindy

Now if only Phobos would come back...

Pat Galea · 2003-09-11 11:58:33

*Hey Pat! Long time no see. And just the other day I was recalling (in preparation for this anniversary date of 9/11) the exchanges you, Phobos, Shaun, and myself (and perhaps a few other folks) had regarding your having been in New York the day prior to 9/11/01. I hope I'm recalling that correctly.

Hey Cindy, how ya doing?

Yeah, been a bit too busy for a while to post. I've been browsing now and then whenever I could grab a moment.

You remember correctly, I was indeed in New York (and the WTC) the day before 9/11. That awful day is always in my thoughts, but you know, NYC is still a beautiful city. Crazy and smelly, sure, but beautiful nonetheless.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-04-08 01:45:31

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#52 2003-04-08 04:54:31

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#53 2003-04-08 06:43:41

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#54 2003-04-08 14:57:23

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#55 2003-04-08 15:06:07

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#56 2003-04-08 15:29:29

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#57 2003-04-08 20:46:16

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#58 2003-04-11 12:29:38

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#59 2003-04-14 13:00:32

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#60 2003-04-15 22:42:00

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#61 2003-04-16 08:13:16

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#62 2003-09-11 06:34:56

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#63 2003-09-11 06:52:49

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#64 2003-09-11 11:58:33

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

Board footer