Reduce Government Drag

RobertDyck · 2003-04-14 12:46:05

The municipal services within a dome would include police. Murder can be dealt with. Federal police should be few, so they can be paid for by the same profits that pay for government overhead.

As for those who are unwilling to work: tuff! Work or leave Mars or die! There will always be a permanent shuttle cycling between Earth and Mars; these will bring colonists to Mars. Return will have empty staterooms. The unemployed bums who refuse to work or refuse to be trained in another job can take that ride back to Earth. If they don't want to go to Earth they can always die. As someone who has received employment insurance benefits I can attest to how humiliating it was to live on that. I do not believe anything more is necessary. Welfare goes above and beyond employment insurance benefits, and perpetuates bums who do nothing. Mars will be an unforgiving environment that cannot tolerate the waste of some bum sitting on his/her ass while consuming oxygen and food. Is this a hardnosed attitude? You bet! I just wish there was some way to take away my computer tech friend's welfare. He can work and is quite skilled; he just doesn't want to and finds welfare pays as much as work. He would work if he had to.

As for addictions: just say no. If you are stupid enough to get addicted to something, you deserve what you bring on yourself. There is no need for anti-narcotics laws if the addicts have no safety net: be responsible or die. I drink a beer or wine once in a while, you don't see me driving or going to work drunk.

clark · 2003-04-14 12:52:53

Robert, i agree with your sensibilites.

However, these sensibilities don't work on Mars, or in space.

One disenfranchised person can destroy everything.

That means you have two choice- a society that reduces disenfranchisements and reduces reasons for an individual to be or to feel threatened, or a society that accepts such disenfranchisements and builds a security apparatus able to deal with the level of disenfranchisement.

Imagine someone dosen't want to work, and they don't want to die either. What would you do if threatened?

RobertDyck · 2003-04-14 13:11:05

You will notice I did include social security on Mars. How many levels of social assistance do you want? You can receive benefits while unemployed, and if you can't find work quickly can be reassigned to another field of work, or if you aren't qualified for anything available can receive training free of charge while continuing to receive benefits to pay living expenses. If you don't want to work then you have no place on Mars! In fact, I am waffling whether the training should be paid by a student loan to be deducted directly from your paycheque. If you have to pay for your own job training you will be motivated to pass. Furthermore, the more money that subsidizes the unemployed the less is available for healthcare.

I don't see how this would disenfranchise anyone who wants to work. You can get training to do any job within reason. Exclude multi-year training such as university degrees. In fact, if a person has most of the requirements for a degree so he/she can complete that degree in just a couple semesters, and if a job in that field is available, then completing such a degree should be part of the job training program. The only people excluded are the lazy bums who don't want to work.

clark · 2003-04-14 13:18:22

The only people excluded are the lazy bums who don't want to work.

That's the easy way to look at it though. Again, I agree with your sentiments, but this isn't a rationale system in an enclosed environment surrounded by instant death.

To give you an example:

Design an Earth city where the residents won't riot.

Before you can come up with a solution, first you have to identify what factors would contribute to individuals rioting in the first place.

Think it through. Why do people riot? Who riots? How many people does it take to create a 'riot' on a scale disable service within a city? Why that many people?

How many people are neccessary to disable a habitat on Mars? What are the results? What systems would you need to disable inorder to effect the maximum destruction or threat? Are there multiple avenues for destroying these things?

Think through these issues, and let me know if you are unconvinced.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-14 13:32:08

Riots assume some "other" is in control. That sounds like the citizens are already disenfranchised. If this is the situation in the country you live in, then you are already disenfranchised. Isn't this supposed to be a new society of the people working together? I doubt there will be lack of work on Mars. The social security system I described would only be needed after the colony grows to the size of a small city, before that even what I describe would not be necessary. In a small base everyone must work; no exceptions.

Oops, forgot to pay the electricity bill- <poof>, lights go off, air runs out, my family dies.

Notice I said in a dome the air is paid for by service fees; basically equivalent to property taxes. If you are in your own homestead it is up to you to build backups. If you're in an apartment in a dome then lack of electricity means just street light through the window and no TV/internet. Of course, if you don't pay your rent...
Perhaps apartment rent should be direct payroll deduction. Or apartments provided as a free employee benefit (and reduced pay rate).

Bill White · 2003-04-14 13:38:10

Imagine someone dosen't want to work, and they don't want to die either. What would you do if threatened?

Who gets to decide if someone "won't work"?

What if my brother gets "spaced" because the powers that be say he "won't work" and I believe the Supreme Commander wanted my brother's girlfriend all to himself? The majority support the Supreme Commander, either for fear or bribes, IMHO. What if I am that woman and can choose death or slavery to Supreme Commander, that being the fellow who decides who will and won't work?

I am smart, well educated, devious and a damn fine engineer and decide you bastards will all pay for my brother's death. So I play along, for a while. . .

How long will the settlement survive? How many can I kill and take with me? How hard will sabotage be if my goal is revenge for the death of my friend or family?

You may say the poor fellow was refused air, food or water because he was a lazy bum. I say you murdered him for your own ulterior motives. Who decides?

clark · 2003-04-14 13:40:13

Okay, we have some different concepts of development in opposition that result in our disagreements.

I cannot accept a development plan where individuals are capable of creating their own habitat without community ivolvement.

The idea of building your own hab in the desert on your parcel of land just isn't realistic. By the time technology reaches that point, all of our musings are made obsolete by technology.

Riots assume some "other" is in control. That sounds like the citizens are already disenfranchised. If this is the situation in the country you live in, then you are already disenfranchised. Isn't this supposed to be a new society of the people working together?

It is. however, what happens the day after next in this scenerio? That is what I am looking at- long term. What are the issues that will be faced, etc.

Eventually a society will form, and it will either succeed, or fail based on the foundation in place. If we use a terran model, then we can expect terran results.

A system that engenders dienfranchisement and also threatens life and limb through non-compliance of behaviour is dangerous. Individuals who feel threatened WILL lash out. On earth, in an open environment, it takes quite a few of these people to feell the effect. In space, it takes ONE person to bring it all down.

Why do you think our leaders get nervous about some tyrant with WMD's? It's the same thing.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-14 13:59:02

I thought this was supposed to be the land of the free. Why do you always assume conflict? Why is everything a fight? Perhaps a planet where fighting results in mass death is a good thing; it will force people to stop the eternal conflict. Work together or die together!

Remember, the system I just described does give someone the ability to live for several weeks, perhaps a few months, on employment insurance benefits. The whole time his/her social worker will try to find work. If no work in his/her field opens quickly then he/she will be assigned work doing something else. This does not leave the person on his/her own trying to find work, a social worker is there to help him/her find work. If the job is not enjoyable, the person can seek work doing something else while working the temporary job. If all else fails, then training for another job is available. What more do you need!? The only time someone is deported is if there is no work, the individual refuses assignment to a temporary job, and refuses training. If given the choice of deportation or being spaced, who would choose to be spaced?

Mars will be a small community. If the "Supreme Commander" tries to force someone out of work because his girlfriend is the "Commander's" intern, then everyone will know. What happened last time a "Commander" got a blow job from his intern?

clark · 2003-04-14 14:20:48

. Why do you always assume conflict? Why is everything a fight?

Becuase conflict is part of the systems we perpetuate on Earth.

Perhaps a planet where fighting results in mass death is a good thing; it will force people to stop the eternal conflict. Work together or die together!

Agreed. If this is the case, how do you justify some within the group profiting at the exspense of others within the group?

Any system that allows for private control of the neccessities of life is an unstable system predicated on conflict as the final arbitrator of disputes. Dosen't anyone see these patterns?

All have a right to the things neccessary for life. This is why it is always wrong to steal a VCR, but sometimes okay to steal life-saving medicince (if no alternative means to secure the medicine is available).

If a system is set up where we must do 'something' to secure neccessities of life, then invariable conflict will arise becuase someone will feel threatened by the lack of access to these neccessities.

Don't screw with a mother bear.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-14 14:47:21

. Why do you always assume conflict? Why is everything a fight?
Becuase conflict is part of the systems we perpetuate on Earth.

No colony will ever survive on Mars, or any other small community in a hostile environment, as long as conflict is part of the system. Think cooperation and coordination, not competition. Competition will not have a place inside the community until it has grown very large. I realize this will take a very great shift of thinking, but it must be done. The colonists must start by realizing they have eachother's ass in their hands. Competition = Loss. Fighting = Defeat. This is not the sportsman's way of thinking, but it will be necessary for survival for many decades on Mars.

Cooperation means everyone thrives. Success of one = success of all. This does not mean new ideas are to be squashed. New ideas will lead to better ways of doing things. In a small community, fine specialization cannot be aforded. The snobbish attitude of rejecting someone's ideas because the don't have the right degree(s) behind their name cannot happen. Everyone must work together, and everyone must listen to eachother. Such cooperation is much more efficient, but can only work in a small community. Mars will be a small community.

Bill White · 2003-04-14 14:58:35

No colony will ever survive on Mars, or any other small community in a hostile environment, as long as conflict is part of the system. Think cooperation and coordination, not competition. Competition will not have a place inside the community until it has grown very large. I realize this will take a very great shift of thinking, but it must be done. The colonists must start by realizing they have eachother's ass in their hands. Competition = Loss. Fighting = Defeat. This is not the sportsman's way of thinking, but it will be necessary for survival for many decades on Mars.
Cooperation means everyone thrives. Success of one = success of all. This does not mean new ideas are to be squashed. New ideas will lead to better ways of doing things. In a small community, fine specialization cannot be aforded. The snobbish attitude of rejecting someone's ideas because the don't have the right degree(s) behind their name cannot happen. Everyone must work together, and everyone must listen to eachother. Such cooperation is much more efficient, but can only work in a small community. Mars will be a small community.

Yes, yes and yes. . .

*IF* the issue of denial of food, water or air to unproductive members of the team is even brought up for discussion, the settlement planners will have already failed. The team spirit and group commitment will need to be so very high that the very idea of a member not pulling his/her weight or the idea that the group would voluntarily let any of their own suffer is simply unthinkable.

I believe settlements will be like large extended families. The need for group commitment and group cohesion will be so great that from each according to their ability and to each according to their need will take effect without conscious decision. Emotional and psychological pressure will assure compliance and anyone not willing to submit will not be asked to emigrate.

Children will be raised to believe that the survival of the group is paramount - for the same reasons Marines throw themselves on live grenades to save their buddies. A Navy SEAL team is a damn commune-istic form of society if you look at it closely.

"What's in it for me" types won't be welcome. .

clark · 2003-04-14 15:03:52

Such cooperation is much more efficient, but can only work in a small community. Mars will be a small community.

Then why go to mars?

If all you have is a small community, and all that will ever work is a small community, what point is there in going to Mars if it can be nothing more than a small community?

I agree with you Robert, 100%. You are being straightforward, and your analysis is spot on. However, it is limited, and self defeating for our purposes here.

Small communities will not allow us to realize Mars. In fact, what you suggest can be set up here, on Earth, for a fraction of the time and energy required to do on mars.

Cooperation means everyone thrives, so why build competition into the system at all?

Bill,

I believe settlements will be like large extended families. The need for group commitment and group cohesion will be so great that from each according to their ability and to each according to their need will take effect without conscious decision. Emotional and psychological pressure will assure compliance and anyone not willing to submit will not be asked to emigrate.

i can see this, and understand this- however, how far might we realisticaly expect the extended family metaphor to work on Mars or in space?

It seems you expect more from the 'unspoken laws' than might be safe.

How do you reconcile these issues with the natural tendancy for adolecents to rebel against the unspoken social norms of their environment?

Bill White · 2003-04-14 15:41:59

i can see this, and understand this- however, how far might we realisticaly expect the extended family metaphor to work on Mars or in space?
It seems you expect more from the 'unspoken laws' than might be safe.

It will be decades or centuries before "cities" grow beyond a thousand people or more. Smaller will be "safer" for these reasons of small group politics. Also - not all eggs in one basket. As cities grow, redundancies will grow. Outer domes as a safeguard for inner domes, more substantial environmental buffers and the like.

We are not reinventing the wheel here - civilian folk have sailed for months on tiny wooden vessels since the 15th century. The threat to life on a leaking 100 foot wooden vessel in the Southern Ocean is far less than on Mars yet the technology and education available to those people was far less also.

Groups will need to "un-learn" the lessons of big city life in the West and it will be hard. The rules will be unspoken on Mars because they will have been drilled in by the psychologists on Earth and the unfit quietly dropped from consideration.

A South Pole team survival course can help weed out the unfit, for example.

How do you reconcile these issues with the natural tendancy for adolecents to rebel against the unspoken social norms of their environment?

My own opinion is that high rates of juvenile deliquency arise from lack of direct parental involvement and excess options available to teens. In other words too many choices in daily life. Letting each child "find his or her own way" will not be an option. US society exalts personal freedom yet punishes based on some fairly arbitrary and irrational guidelines.

Social norms will need to be spoken about - quite frankly - by parents and teachers along with the reasons why. During the holocaust in Europe, many Jewish children came to understand the need for silence, for not "acting up" as a condition of survival. "Being quiet" when the Gestapo came near was not a subject to be discussed or voted upon.

The reality of a poisonous near vacuum atmosphere will be ever present on parents minds and will be impressed on their children. "Lifestyle" freedoms - as we spoiled Westerners understand it - will be in short supply. Freedom - in ways we cannot imagine will be available in abundance.

When I envision what will be needed to settle Mars, I can only conclude "Hell No!, I wouldn't go! and I would strongly discourage my children as well. Its going to take some crazy committed people, thats for sure. But somehow I doubt we will lack volunteers.

clark · 2003-04-14 15:46:09

Thank you Bill.

We are not reinventing the wheel here - civilian folk have sailed for months on tiny wooden vessels since the 15th century.

Yeah, but no civilians have tried to live entirely on the boat for their natural lives, or for the duration of their childrens, childrens, childrens lives.

Groups will need to "un-learn" the lessons of big city life in the West and it will be hard. The rules will be unspoken on Mars because they will have been drilled in by the psychologists on Earth and the unfit quietly dropped from consideration.

Yet this careful system of selection is undone with the first birth on Mars. The threads unweave with each successive generation born into Mars. What happens when your world is filled with people who might not neccessarily be the ones who would best thrive in such a situation?

Gentic lottery is half the game, no?

Bill White · 2003-04-14 16:00:58

People will die. Some settlements will fail.

Jamestown failed - in part I believe - because of a stratified social structure where concerns about "what is mine" and "what is yours" were deemed more important than "what is ours."

Yet by looking at these issues we can reduce the risk. The goal will be survival, not social utopia.

Yet this careful system of selection is undone with the first birth on Mars. The threads unweave with each successive generation born into Mars. What happens when your world is filled with people who might not neccessarily be the ones who would best thrive in such a situation?
Gentic lottery is half the game, no?

This "lottery" is not a random walk. Behavior is nature + nuture + personal spirit. Genes are not destiny but "tabula rosa" is a myth as well.

People who have the temperment for Mars will be "more likely" to have children with such temperment. Not for sure, not pre-destined, but "more likely" - - such settlers will also understand the need to teach the things I am talking about.

Will "issues" arise? Of course and some will fail to resolve those issues. Evil things may need to be done if all else fails. No one will claim it was right - merely necessary.

clark · 2003-04-14 16:46:55

People who have the temperment for Mars will be "more likely" to have children with such temperment.

I am inclined to agree, however, is it reasonable to rely on unspoken social norms in the hope that most of the children will be like minded enough to respect these conventions?

Not for sure, not pre-destined, but "more likely" - - such settlers will also understand the need to teach the things I am talking about.

The formulation of this system is predicated on involvement of parent with child to let the child understand the environment well enough to navigate within it successfully. This leads to a larger stability of society.

I can accept this, however, the system breaks as the involvement between parent and child is undermined. This situation is only made more delicate with a settlement where the parent to child ratio is high. It then becomes harder to spend the individual time neccessary to teach the valuabnle lessons that are itnegral to the maintaneance of the entire society.

One person having 14 kids they hardly spend any time with will be your undoing.

Bill White · 2003-04-14 17:33:16

One person having 14 kids they hardly spend any time with will be your undoing.

I quite agree. . .

RobertDyck · 2003-04-15 13:12:59

Getting back to reducing drag, I've become convinced that the training I described should be paid for by student loan. Loan payments will be deducted directly from the employee's paycheque once he completes the training. If someone takes the attitude "Don't screw with a mother bear" then that is a person to deport. In fact, the economy on Mars will not support someone sitting around for even 2 weeks without work. Everyone will be assigned work quickly, even if it is menial. The payroll tax system I describe will not be necessary until city-size domes are created. A more family modelled economy will prevail in a small base. However, the key here is no tax on Mars.

Perhaps you haven't encountered someone like my tech friend. He has not been pushed hard enough. He will have to be pushed until he is desperate, and then pushed still harder before he will get off his ass and get to work. Hopefully it will be a long time before we have to deal with anyone like him on Mars, but once a colony grows to the size of a city we will. And, "NO!" the excuse of justifying theft due to need does not cut it. Theft is theft. A lazy bum who deliberately screws up job after job because he doesn't feel like working is someone who must be pushed hard until he does put in the effort to hold onto his job. If he attempts to get out of that pressure by stealing, then he is attempting to get out of his punishment, out of his lesson. Such a person has to be slapped down all the harder. If his belly is aching because he has no food then he must learn to do what it takes to keep his job! It will be a long time before Mars can afford the expense of teaching someone such a lesson. It will be far more effective to simply deport them back to Earth.

If someone doesn't like working for a big company, then he/she can start his/her own small business and service customers. A business person still has to serve customers. A farmer or miner does not have to deal with people except when selling his/her product. Perhaps an anti-social person would feel more comfortable in such a career. If a miner doesn't feel like working, he can sit and do nothing until his/her supplies run out. How many supplies are entirely up to his/her own productivity.

Utilities are not as over-bearing as you first assume. Independent homesteads will have their own power production facility. Power lines stretching over thousands of kilometres to a single homestead will not be economical. A small cluster of homesteads may choose a central power plant, but more likely each will have their own. Then it becomes a matter of fuel, nuclear fuel, solar collectors, or whatever is the basis of power generation. Utilities will tend to be within a dome.

Perhaps I should explain: I see one of the great draws to bring people to Mars will be freedom from taxes. Lack of taxes does mean lack of many of the social safety nets which are supported by those taxes. People will have to make a choice: live in a frontier environment where they do not have an overbearing government taking what they have and dictating to them, but that also means they do not have that same government to bail them out when things get tough. If you want to be on your own with no one but yourself, your family and your neighbours, then a frontier colony is the place to be.

clark · 2003-04-15 13:35:54

Getting back to reducing drag, I've become convinced that the training I described should be paid for by student loan.

So call it what it is, indentured servitude.

In fact, the economy on Mars will not support someone sitting around for even 2 weeks without work.

The poor mothers. So much for maternity leave, or vacations.

What do you do with the people you cannot deport to Earth. What happens when you have no more dumping ground?

Everyone will be assigned work quickly, even if it is menial.

What is the usual outcome when highly specialized individuals do 'menial' work? It is not a recipe for success.

Hopefully it will be a long time before we have to deal with anyone like him on Mars, but once a colony grows to the size of a city we will.

So this is an eventual problem that WILL develop. WHy not take steps from the begining to reduce the possibility of later occurances?

It will be far more effective to simply deport them back to Earth.

Agreed. Now, when we find out that long term visits to mars preclude a return to Earth, what do we do?

Every society has used the option: "Get rid of em", When individuals no longer met the standards of the society. This was a cheap and humane way to deal with these people.

You are repeating their solution. So, what happens, as invariably happens, when you can no longer dump your problem elsewhere?

If a miner doesn't feel like working, he can sit and do nothing until his/her supplies run out. How many supplies are entirely up to his/her own productivity.

But I just can't accept a scenario where individuals are capable of providing all of their own supplies and/or infrastructure to survive on Mars. Nuclear reactors don't grow on trees. Solar panels can't be banged out in your shed. All of these advanced machines that will be neccessary require technical expertise to montior, fix, or tweak as neccessary.

No one indiviudal, or small group of people, will have the expertise or ability to do all of this alone.

it will take billions of dollars. Resources that simply are not available to a few individuals trying to make a new life on a distant planet.

Tell me how individuals can legitimately survive, on their own, on Mars.

The first Martian colony will be the first Martian city for the simple reason that it will take a city of people to make a go of it on Mars. The individual is a dead concept here.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-15 14:01:08

So call it what it is, indentured servitude.

Do you honestly expect someone else to pay for your education?

What is the usual outcome when highly specialized individuals do 'menial' work? It is not a recipe for success.

I have been a software developer for 22 years. I also have knowledge of computer hardware, and I think my knowledge of science isn't too bad. Still, I have had to work in a salvage yard pulling nails from boards and stacking them on a pallet, cleaning bricks piled from a demolished building and palletizing them, or delivering newspapers. I KNOW what menial work is necessary at times to put food on the table.

So this is an eventual problem that WILL develop. Why not take steps from the beginning to reduce the possibility of later occurrences?

That is the job placement system I described, with employment insurance benefits to fill the time if there is nothing, and if all else fails job training.

But I just can't accept a scenario where individuals are capable of providing all of their own supplies and/or infrastructure to survive on Mars. Nuclear reactors don't grow on trees. Solar panels can't be banged out in your shed. All of these advanced machines that will be necessary require technical expertise to monitor, fix, or tweak as necessary.
No one individual, or small group of people, will have the expertise or ability to do all of this alone.

Have you ever talked to a farmer? He/she has to maintain all farm equipment, including any heavy equipment. If the farm has a power generator, the farmer must maintain, monitor, fix or tweak that as necessary. A farmer has to be jack of all trades. A homesteader will be the same. It is truly amazing how much you can learn if you want to. Simple repairs and tweaking even a nuclear reactor can be done. Replacement parts and replacement solar panels will have to be purchased. That is what an economy is for. I see one very valuable commodity on Mars being a simple and sturdy miniature nuclear reactor; fuelled by nuclear fuel mined on Mars and sized for a single homestead. Of course that makes the nuclear prospector a valuable career on Mars.

clark · 2003-04-15 14:13:36

Do you honestly expect someone else to pay for your education?

Yes.

Millions of people, the world round, have exactly the same expectation too. Every industrilized society, every democracy, has at its cornerstone a free education.

Maybe you will quibble that it is only meant to cover 'basic' education. I will accept that, yet next i will ask you what will be the neccessary 'basic' education level of any Martian resident.

Education leads to greater individual opportunity which leads to a more stable, and a more prosporous society. Your plans for implementing training programs is a good start, but it is rooted in a process that has problems.

Still, I have had to work in a salvage yard pulling nails from boards and stacking them on a pallet, cleaning bricks piled from a demolished building and palletizing them, or delivering newspapers. I KNOW what menial work is necessary at times to put food on the table.

i understand and accept what you are saying, I was merely trying to point out that people are more satisfied when they employ their skills in a venture that rewards them for use of those skills. menial work isn't as rewarding. neccessity, as always, dictates what we all do.

Have you ever talked to a farmer? He/she has to maintain all farm equipment, including any heavy equipment.

I think you may be jumping analogies a bit. A farmer is using machinery that is robust, mass manufactured, and is built from parts with low failure rates. In order to fix something, he has to have a working knowledge of the machinery, space parts, and the ability to work on the machine.

A tractor is not a nuclear reactor. If I screw up on the tractor, it just will quit working. if I screw up on the reactor, I take out everyone for 5 miles in any direction.

It is truly amazing how much you can learn if you want to. Simple repairs and tweaking even a nuclear reactor can be done.

How? How can simple repairs be accomplished in an environment like mars? Nothing is simple given the conditions.

Of course that makes the nuclear prospector a valuable career on Mars.

This is something I am interested in, is there material on Mars, and in what kind of quantities, that can fuel nuclear reactors?

RobertDyck · 2003-04-15 14:29:02

Here are a couple links for you. The first is a map of thorium on Mars surface. The second is an article regarding a nuclear reactor fueled by thorium. I haven't analyzed this reactor design yet, but it shows one possible design fueled by something we know exists on Mars.

Map of Martian Thorium at Mid-Latitudes

Thorium: Is It the Better Nuclear Fuel?

clark · 2003-04-15 14:29:48

Thank you Robert!

from the link

It is certainly premature to celebrate this technology yet. Much of the feasibility data is from small scale tests and from simulations. There are technical challenges that will have to be overcome. One of these is to find a containment material that does not have the nasty tendency that steel has to dissolve in molten lead.

Could nano-tube bucky ball material deal with the technical challenge mentioned?

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-04-15 17:58:44

A few notes regarding "libertarianism".

It seems to me that "libertarianism" is rather like the sort of "liberation" we would arrive at by granting everyone "freedom" from the "government infringement on individual liberties" which gurantees that the use of force is something that ought to be used as a society, instead of by individuals against eachother, meaning warlordism. This is of course ridiculous, but it is essentially the same idea ; that we ought to stop this terrible infringement on individual liberties by democratic organizations by granting control to individuals, or, that is, tyrants, which is what individuals who control vast resources are. This is a nonsensical notion of "individualism" which, applied in a fully formed way, would praise Hitler for his "individualism" and "initiative" in siezing control of Germany. He would be an "entrepreneur" who had beat the competition, not in a setting where individual liberties are taken away by democratic regulation of the use of force, but where they go to the person who has "earned" them.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-16 01:00:29

Alexander, I'm trying to follow what you're saying, but I am having trouble relating it to anything that has been said in this thread. Are you saying that anyone "deserves" to be given everything they want regardless who has to work to make it for them? Are you saying that the rest of the individuals in society have to work their fingers to the bone to give away the product of their labours to someone who couldn't be bothered to work? Remember that air itself is a commodity that has to be manufactured on Mars. This is one reason I have said that everyone must work. What they work at and how hard they work is up to the individual, but they do not "deserve" more than they contribute.

A very small community will not make distinctions between the value of one person's labour vs. another; rather it really will be "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need". However that will include very strong peer pressure for everyone to contribute equally. In a city the individuals cannot know each other so there is no way to keep track of who is contributing and who is lazy; and peer pressure from a complete stranger can be easily dismissed.

The social safety net I proposed is based on getting back to work quickly. If an individual does not want to work, he/she does not have to. However, they will still have to pay their bills. Food is not free, heat is not free, in fact air is not free. A dome would include air recycling as part of the service fee paid by building owners to the dome management. That means apartment rent includes your air. If you can't pay rent you will be evicted. Homeless cannot be tolerated within a dome because they do not pay for their air. There will have to be a hostel to house those being deported, but it would be little better than jail. If an individual has his/her own habitat complete with air recycling then there is no need for payments or reliance on anyone's judgement. There is certainly plenty of land upon which to setup a habitat.

Perhaps this is concept is better understood by someone from Canada. I live in Winnipeg, 60 miles north of the border with North Dakota. I checked the weather statistics and found that the city in Russia with temperature most similar is Tomsk, Siberia; close to Omsk. There is no city in Russia east of the Ural Mountains that gets this cold; you really have to go to Siberia to find winter weather like this. Heat in winter means the difference between life and death. An enclosed habitat really is a fact of life, and in December/January you have to bundle-up with heavy clothing to venture outside. At night on the coldest nights the wind chill can get so cold that exposed flesh freezes in 2 minutes. So failure to pay your heating bill raises lethal consequences. It is illegal for the utility company to cut off your heat in winter; however they can place a lean on your property, get you evicted from a rental, or proceed with foreclosure. In summer they can cut off your heat and just not turn it back on. That would get your property condemned as unfit for human habitation when cold weather arrived, and the police would seal your house. You would have to fail to pay your bills for half a year before being evicted, or about a year before foreclosure or getting condemned, but it can happen.

So the concept that "power is life" is something we live with up here right now. Paying bills is already an absolute necessity. This is part of the reason I hold such contempt for an individual sitting in a warm townhouse paid for by taxes collected from the rest of us who do work.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-04-14 12:46:05

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#27 2003-04-14 12:52:53

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#28 2003-04-14 13:11:05

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#29 2003-04-14 13:18:22

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#30 2003-04-14 13:32:08

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#31 2003-04-14 13:38:10

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#32 2003-04-14 13:40:13

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#33 2003-04-14 13:59:02

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#34 2003-04-14 14:20:48

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#35 2003-04-14 14:47:21

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#36 2003-04-14 14:58:35

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#37 2003-04-14 15:03:52

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#38 2003-04-14 15:41:59

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#39 2003-04-14 15:46:09

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#40 2003-04-14 16:00:58

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#41 2003-04-14 16:46:55

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#42 2003-04-14 17:33:16

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#43 2003-04-15 13:12:59

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#44 2003-04-15 13:35:54

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#45 2003-04-15 14:01:08

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#46 2003-04-15 14:13:36

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#47 2003-04-15 14:29:02

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#48 2003-04-15 14:29:48

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#49 2003-04-15 17:58:44

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#50 2003-04-16 01:00:29

Re: Reduce Government Drag

Board footer