Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-24 18:55:50

Of course not, because multiple states will see me as a mutual threat (or nuisance) and deal with me. No need for world government.
Okay, so you would prefer to rely on unknown alliances that develop at circumstances dictate in reaction to events. Reactive instead of proactive. This isn't neccessarily the wisest course of action given the environment.

Would you prefer a system that prevents private consortia from developing the frontier because there's a chance that some loon might unleash radioactive super monkeys (to keep with our absurd example) from the barren wastes?

So the solution is to recreate the same problems we have with the UN? There is a reason the Articles of Conederation didn't last longer than 10 years. There is a reason that EU is moving towards a super-state, and away from their own version of the US articles of confederation.

For a populous, developed state a federation is preferable, but in a sparsely settled frontier it creates regulations where they are not needed. Eventually the federation will be needed and will be formed. Until then, let a looser entity do what is needed and leave everything else to develop naturally. For Earth-based governments I have nothing but contempt for confederations, but in a colonial Mars setting it seems to be the best balance.

Come on, you seem to know your history, you're telling me you're willing to let your personal politcal philosphy undo learned lessons from history? ???

If I were entirely following my own political philosophy I'd be advocating the US land a colony ship, annex the whole planet and develop it as American territory. But if the world acted the way I thought it should there'd be an American Imperium stretching from Hawaii to Japan the long way. Much to the benefit of the people living within it. But we must be practical.

clark · 2003-10-24 19:07:34

Would you prefer a system that prevents private consortia from developing the frontier because there's a chance that some loon might unleash radioactive super monkeys (to keep with our absurd example) from the barren wastes?

Yes. But then I never liked radioactive super monky's to begin with.

For a populous, developed state a federation is preferable, but in a sparsely settled frontier it creates regulations where they are not needed.

Okay, I'll grant you this one, but now we're dealing with some actual numbers. At what point is the federation preferable, and at what number is it not?

If I were entirely following my own political philosophy I'd be advocating the US land a colony ship, annex the whole planet and develop it as American territory.

Oh, you mean US policy for the last 50 years?

Seriously though, we haven't been overt about it (mostly) but it all started with the Marshall plan...

Much to the benefit of the people living within it. But we must be practical.

Americans live a life of wonder and leaisure built on the back of the poor and oppressed. We take more than our fair share, you can't deny that. Though I wish we could. [sigh]

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-24 19:32:27

For a populous, developed state a federation is preferable, but in a sparsely settled frontier it creates regulations where they are not needed.
Okay, I'll grant you this one, but now we're dealing with some actual numbers. At what point is the federation preferable, and at what number is it not?

I don't think it's so much a question of raw numbers as much as cultural and economic development. I think we'll have to wing it to a degree.

Americans live a life of wonder and leaisure built on the back of the poor and oppressed. We take more than our fair share, you can't deny that. Though I wish we could. [sigh]

We also provide more than our fair share. The United States is the best friend the poor and oppressed have in this world. Despite our blindness or unwillingness to act at times.

Bill White · 2003-10-25 21:38:19

I have been racking my brain to figure this out. Better yet, why would people go there to have children, and what would their kids make of it?

Me too. . .

Gennaro · 2003-10-26 06:11:30

In many ways I agree with Cobra Commander. Rough, endless, unbreathable wasteland, although sometimes maybe rich in export potential, punctuated with domes and underground habitats for life, pressure, warmth and growing crops, set the precedent for the Martian political environment for decades or centuries after planetfall. To issue a territorial claim over the entire planet, whether by a Martian governmental body or a super power on Earth is both absurd, untenable and even politically hazardous, especially from a terran perspective.

Let me explain. The countries that are big enough and has the most aggressive and promising mindset today for settling Mars are China and the United States, but Russia and Europe both have the potential and then there's Japan, India, Taiwan and Korea (re-united).
The most natural prognosis in my view, is that several terran countries will want to put their own settlements on Mars to ripe some benefit combined with reasons of national prestige, especially if the first operation is an exclusive NASA venture. How will the United States react if there's a Chinese base on Mars and not a US one? Think the question answers itself. By the same token, a global claim on Mars of any kind will sooner or later run into serious political problems.
On the other hand, if no obvious benefit for settling Mars presents itself, or political conditions on Earth precludes anything but a purely scientific approach, possibly because of one semi-interested super power continually dominating Earth, the base there will remain an odd anomaly, much like the international south polar station in Antarctica for the foreseeable future.

Other than that however, since the Martian conditions are very special, there will for a long time, going through the exploration phase, base building phase and far into the settlement phase, be no need for anything but specialists of various kinds populating those settlements. These elite people will naturally be closely tied to their terran contractors.
At the same time, there will be no means of exerting administrative control over the harsh frontier from Earth and the colonists won't pay taxes, so there's no reason to create big over arching bureaucracies.
The capital transactions will limit themselves to commercial exchange, provided the Martians can find anything to trade for their imports. Rest assured, they will need a lot of imports. Every advanced piece of equipment, from ground penetrating radars and robotical mining gear to the latest computer games to soothe a young generation dreaming of Earth, will have to be imported.

As said, the political landscape of Mars would basically conform to the base surroundings and their operations in far away places. They will be tied to their Earth providers but essentially exist as self governed entities with their own political institutions, somewhat akin to the Greek colonies of antiquity. Territorial ownership will be judged by default, that is first to the mill.
If a colony or a group of settlements then break away from their terran bonds in some advanced state of development, well, good for them! It won't necessarily mean that the neighbouring colony will do the same.
The specific social conditions of Mars, having a population mainly consisting of various specialists, will also mean that terran constitutions and political institutions will not necessarily be duplicated. It may well be the case that a political culture will evolve where a colony is typically run by a self-propagating assembly of highly educated people, Plato's philosophers if you will (scientists are of course in classical terms natural philosophers), rather than a democracy based on public elections. Whatever will work in an environment essentially devoid of preconceptions and with very dissimilar social conditions from Earth.

clark · 2003-10-27 10:14:40

I don't think it's so much a question of raw numbers as much as cultural and economic development. I think we'll have to wing it to a degree.

So Cobra, you're agreeing with the conclusion, but not the timeline? :laugh: At some point, due to cultural and economic development, a strong central body is neccessary.

We also provide more than our fair share. The United States is the best friend the poor and oppressed have in this world. Despite our blindness or unwillingness to act at times.

Provide our fair share? Perhaps. But I can't see reason to disagree.

To issue a territorial claim over the entire planet, whether by a Martian governmental body or a super power on Earth is both absurd, untenable and even politically hazardous, especially from a terran perspective.

Shift your persepective to one of a first or second generation, Martian born native. Then tell me it's the same.

The most natural prognosis in my view, is that several terran countries will want to put their own settlements on Mars to ripe some benefit combined with reasons of national prestige, especially if the first operation is an exclusive NASA venture.

Utterly plausible, yet when people are living on Mars, raising children there, who are the children more likely to have something in common- their mother country, on Earth, which exsists only as pictures, or Mars, and the inhabitants there- the only people they ever see?

Remember, living on Mars will be unlike ANY terrestrial living situation. There is little room to relate with anyone other than other space colonists.

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-27 17:15:05

So Cobra, you're agreeing with the conclusion, but not the timeline? :laugh: At some point, due to cultural and economic development, a strong central body is neccessary.

Further centralization will be necessary, but that hardly means a planetary government. And for a timeframe, we're talking generations.

Other than that however, since the Martian conditions are very special, there will for a long time, going through the exploration phase, base building phase and far into the settlement phase, be no need for anything but specialists of various kinds populating those settlements. These elite people will naturally be closely tied to their terran contractors.

I suppose that depends on how you define specialist. We'll need a few highly trained people for specific tasks, but much of building a colony will involve construction work, plumbing, wiring; not terribly specialised stuff, at least not to the extent of some of the engineering that will have to go into it beforehand. But again, it doesn't take a PhD to assemble a hab any more than it takes an Einstein to assemble an atomic bomb, just good instructions. Besides, a colony of specialized scientist types isn't a colony at all, it's a base.

Gennaro · 2003-10-27 20:33:09

I suppose that depends on how you define specialist. We'll need a few highly trained people for specific tasks, but much of building a colony will involve construction work, plumbing, wiring; not terribly specialised stuff, at least not to the extent of some of the engineering that will have to go into it beforehand. But again, it doesn't take a PhD to assemble a hab any more than it takes an Einstein to assemble an atomic bomb, just good instructions.

- I meant, well, 'relatively' highly qualified people of various categories into which engineers certainly are included. Considering limited payloads, sending unqualified labour to Mars however, simply won't be worth the effort so long as there are others to choose from. At least not until a very advanced interplanetary transport infrastructure has come into being, at which time a Martian civilization probably will have already evolved.

Besides, a colony of specialized scientist types isn't a colony at all, it's a base.

- And when a settlement evolves into a colony I generally imagine it previously has been what? The only people there will never be a any reason to send to Mars are professional yes men without any knowledge or skills but attending meetings and scratching each others personal backs, that is the main ruling class products of western democracies. (Who, of course, also need the lemmings of this world to stay in power.)

Utterly plausible, yet when people are living on Mars, raising children there, who are the children more likely to have something in common- their mother country, on Earth, which exsists only as pictures, or Mars, and the inhabitants there- the only people they ever see?
Remember, living on Mars will be unlike ANY terrestrial living situation. There is little room to relate with anyone other than other space colonists.

- Obviously, but I don't see why this mandatorily must result in demands for Martian independence, let alone Martian unification. Independence from what, a mother country on Earth that isn't bothering you? I'm not saying that it couldn't or will not happen here and there, just that I fail to see the necessary reasons why it must. A lot of the Martian secessionalist ethos on these boards seem to me highly dependant on a certain historical myth of North American origin. But even in New England people didn't start feeling particularly un-British until parliament seriously started to mistreat its brave pioneers.
Consider also that separation from mother country not seldom result in intensified needs for identifying with roots and origins. Like the Falklanders of the southern hemisphere who were said to be more British than the English when war broke out in 1981. South East Asians for example are known to be very nationalistically minded.
Naturally, I guess one's opinion here depends a lot on what time frame is reckoned with, I make amends for that, but second generationalists I'm not very certain will turn into fiery reds just for the sake of it. Many will probably not plan to stay for life in a frozen desert anyway, but rather serving a few years for a substantial paycheck.

Things will happen but it will take time and probably not unfold in ways that we expect.

Ian · 2003-10-27 20:41:41

Should transportation be free on Mars?

Gennaro · 2003-10-27 21:02:51

You mean public transportation? I could possibly imagine that, but that's probably only due to my awkward Socialist tendencies.

Bill White · 2003-10-27 21:05:21

I especially wish to agree with this:

A lot of the Martian secessionalist ethos on these boards seem to me highly dependant on a certain historical myth of North American origin.

My college degree is American History so I feel rather more qualified to comment on this than I do when venturing into RobertDyck territory.

Now, as for the whole. . .

Obviously, but I don't see why this mandatorily must result in demands for Martian independence, let alone Martian unification. Independence from what, a mother country on Earth that isn't bothering you? I'm not saying that it couldn't or will not happen here and there, just that I fail to see the necessary reasons why it must. A lot of the Martian secessionalist ethos on these boards seem to me highly dependant on a certain historical myth of North American origin. But even in New England people didn't start feeling particularly un-British until parliament seriously started to mistreat its brave pioneers.

Can children =ever= really be friends with their parents?

Freud, IMHO, says NO, (unless father and daughter, like Sigmund and Anna, are utterly superior human beings) but personally I am not so sure. Since I genuinely like and respect both my parents (and my wife's parents) and I hope the same proves true for my children.

Hopefully the Terran founders of the first Mars settlement will be enlightened enough to allow Marsian settlers sufficient and reasonable independence so that shopworn sci fi cliche' - - plucky colonists rebel against Terran bureaucrats - - never comes to pass. Heinlein and Bova, for example, seem fixated with re-playing a mythological vision of 1776 only with space ships and ray guns.

Gennaro · 2003-10-27 21:33:04

Can children =ever= really be friends with their parents?
Freud, IMHO, says NO, (unless father and daughter, like Sigmund and Anna, are utterly superior human beings) but personally I am not so sure.

- I would like to agree. I'd like to keep a generally high regard for humanity. Looking at history that is not always possible. Anyhow, there are serious people who reckon Freud is nothing but hogwash, anyway. Won't comment on that but I go so far as saying, here's a man so obsessed with his ideas (or was that neurosis?) that he called his methodically unproven concepts science.

A personal confession. I'm on better terms with mom than dad...

???

Hopefully the Terran founders of the first Mars settlement will be enlightened enough to allow Marsian settlers sufficient and reasonable independence so that shopworn sci fi cliche' - - plucky colonists rebel against Terran bureaucrats - - never comes to pass. Heinlein and Bova, for example, seem fixated with re-playing a mythological vision of 1776 only with space ships and ray guns.

- As much as I enjoy Heinlein, I hope so too.

*lol* :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-28 17:51:47

- I meant, well, 'relatively' highly qualified people of various categories into which engineers certainly are included. Considering limited payloads, sending unqualified labour to Mars however, simply won't be worth the effort so long as there are others to choose from. At least not until a very advanced interplanetary transport infrastructure has come into being, at which time a Martian civilization probably will have already evolved.

But if there is a colony it will produce its own unqualified labor.This will happen long before there is a "Martian civilization" of any consequence. Which brings us to another oft overlooked fact: many of the "qualifications" we attach so much importance to are merely institutional hoops one must navigate in order to be considered for employment. The inevitable shortage of labor will result in a severe relaxing of the formalities. Besides, somebody is still going to have to mop the floors, clean the toilets and all those other little things we so easily forget about when pondering great endeavors.

- And when a settlement evolves into a colony I generally imagine it previously has been what?

I am of the opinion that the "base evolving into colony" assumption is without merit. A base isn't going to evolve into anything but a larger base, a colony will require a conscious decision to permanently settle Mars with people, not researchers but average people with families and non Mars-research centered occupations. A base is just that and nothing more.

Ian · 2003-10-29 12:39:19

If a nation or a world government forms on Mars, will they want to govern themselves using a representative form of government where the people elect their leaders and the leaders work for them? Will they use computer networks to attend something like a congressional meeting to try to decide what they want to have done with representatives from many different colonies meeting in a single building or habitat? Or would they want a different form of government? I think that most of the colonists on Mars will want to be seperate from a central government because they might want to escape polotical, social and economic problems on Earth. Also, with online voting becoming a reality even though a network or computers are connected to many diffrent places where people go to the polls and elect their leaders, there's always the possiblity of someone hacking into the network and changing the votes or seeing who voted for which leader or completely deleting the votes altogether perhaps with a computer virus. Does anyone think these sorts of problems will affect future martian colonies?

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-29 18:26:37

Also, with online voting becoming a reality even though a network or computers are connected to many diffrent places where people go to the polls and elect their leaders, there's always the possiblity of someone hacking into the network and changing the votes or seeing who voted for which leader or completely deleting the votes altogether perhaps with a computer virus.

All good points. I'll go one further and suggest that any method of voting that doesn't use paper ballots in some form is a bad idea. No paper trail, nothing can be verified. A little too convenient.

Byron · 2003-10-30 08:53:58

Also, with online voting becoming a reality even though a network or computers are connected to many diffrent places where people go to the polls and elect their leaders, there's always the possiblity of someone hacking into the network and changing the votes or seeing who voted for which leader or completely deleting the votes altogether perhaps with a computer virus.
All good points. I'll go one further and suggest that any method of voting that doesn't use paper ballots in some form is a bad idea. No paper trail, nothing can be verified. A little too convenient.

Yeah, that's why the county that I live in (Broward) is spending millions to dump the electronic voting pads for an optical scanner system, which is much cheaper and leaves a paper trail. Why they didn't think of this in the first place is beyond me...

B

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-01 13:15:52

Yeah, that's why the county that I live in (Broward) is spending millions to dump the electronic voting pads for an optical scanner system, which is much cheaper and leaves a paper trail. Why they didn't think of this in the first place is beyond me...
B

We've had the same optical scanner system in the three Michigan counties I've lived in for the past ten years or so and never had a problem with them. I had actually just assumed that everyone did it that way until the 2000 fiasco.

bmk · 2003-12-12 15:56:44

Peace to all,

I'm new to this community and definitely intend to make productive contributions to these very interesting threads. My input will be brief because I'm still studying the various thoughts, ideas, and concepts expressed concerning future governments on Mars.

In any event, whatever governmental system manifest on the red planet, it must be a democracy with genuine multi-party rule. I mean representation beyond the current two-party (pseudo-democratic) system practised in America. Mars enjoy the opportunity of manifesting a genuine democracy as determined by the people for the peoples.

Rxke · 2003-12-12 16:32:30

Hi, bmk!

Good, but difficult point about the multi- party system...
From what i've read on a variety of boards etc. most American people tend to see multi party as less democratic-sophisticated than two party systems... Multy party is more difficult, for sure, but it works by a lot of negociating and meeting-each other-halfways... so arguably(?) more people are 'happy' with the results... But these results are sometimes so watered down from original proposals, they get 'useless'... Most european, asian, african states work this way, and you could argue against or in favour... Any law specialists around here? i think Iraq would be an interesting case to follow, all those different groups... no way you can get away with installing a two-party system there, at least not initially...

BTW, your link has a little typo, it says ww. instead of www.

bmk · 2003-12-12 17:24:17

Rxke thank you for the speedy reply. The typo has been corrected.

Martian politics cannot and should not emerge as a carbon copy of American democracy. If this happens then the foundation for conspiracy theories purporting the extension of American imperialism into the heavens will become valid. This will also imply that the American way is right for all peoples including non-humanoids that exist somewhere out there in space.

The colonization of Mars in my opinion should reflect a true open society, with free markets (laisez faire) and very minimal government intrusion.

If I were to pioneer my own colony on Mars, I'd definitely resist any form of restrictions on my freedom because it would defeat the purpose of pioneering strange new worlds.

If it was not for the privatization of the space age almost ten years ago, many of us would not be able to dream any more. Earth is now saturated and ruined. We must step out of this mess and reinvent life and experiment with new ideas of governing people. Any comments?

Echus_Chasma · 2003-12-12 22:10:05

Multy party is more difficult, for sure, but it works by a lot of negociating and meeting-each other-halfways...

That is kind of what's happened in New Zealand since we have introduced MMP (which was designed to give more power to the little parties). The main 'Opposition' party almost has less power than the other randoms and the main party in power (Labour) is a minority which needs to rely on a coalition with two other parties in order to pass laws.

so arguably(?) more people are 'happy' with the results...

haha, but I don't think the people are more happy. The right-wingers hate with the government and it lifted the moratorium on GE with like 70-80% of the country opposed to it as well as contraversy about indigenous rights to the foreshore and seabed going on etc. But no-one has the power to really do a damn thing about it.

The NZ Labour party can pick and from the two other parties in the coalition to pass laws so when the Greens are opposed (as with GE) they turned to the United Party and so managed to scrape it through. The right-wing vote is seperated between 3-4 parties who have seperate agendas so therefore they are useless. As there are only two left wing parties and a central party - which are the ones who are in power - even though they disagree regularly, laws still get past because they have a higher percentage of votes per party than the opposition.

Well, that's what MMP does.

bmk:

The colonization of Mars in my opinion should reflect a true open society, with free markets (laisez faire) and very minimal government intrusion.

Wouldn't a form of socialism be better than laissez-faire capitalism for Mars? I'd imagine that in the first colonies people would be living together with shared resources etc.

I'm not too sure on how Capitalism works compared with Socialism, but would it be possible to sorta have a mix of the two? Just wondering aloud...

edit: Welcome bmk!

Rxke · 2003-12-13 04:14:41

Don't get me wrong when i say i'll probably won't contribute to this thread after this one last post. It's just that I find it too hard to write out my thoughts in English, esp. with a subject as subtle as politics...

Politics is important, people that say it isn't, are in danger of being ignored in the future, so discussions are good, are essential. But oh-so difficult...

Most people have a 'clear' idea what the ideal format of government is (in their opinion), and won't change their minds about it, lots of fruitless dicussions ensue.
I (personal opinion!) think it's nigh impossible to predict how Martian politics will evolve, we don't even know what the average demographic profile will be...
Anyway, i'll keep reading this thread, lots of different views here, should be interesting.

dickbill · 2003-12-13 10:04:27

In any event, whatever governmental system manifest on the red planet, it must be a democracy with genuine multi-party rule. I mean representation beyond the current two-party (pseudo-democratic) system practised in America.

bkm, as a french in america, I found the political clivage in america very similar, but not quite identical, to the left/right clivage in france. My political views are basics, I am not from Sciences-Politiques or ENA, sorry (flagellations here), but I think that it's very easy to figure out how things work:

The american democratic party encompass the french Left and right, it's more like "The french Left + middle moderate right" with the following presidential candidate, from the righthest to the more leftists, in order:
Lieberman (rightist definitively, equivalent to french UDF)
Gephardt ( so he is still slightly rightist in the french sense, but borderline with left views, he is just at the middle )
Kerry, Edwards (start to be slightly more lefttist )
Dean, Sharpton (definitively leftists, but Dean oscillates between right and left )
Ms Braun, Kuchinic (definitively the more lefttist, equivalent to french PS)
Clark ? I don't know

for the republicans, views are spread between a front national and UMP french ideology. But globally, if the system is not identical, it is similar. Democratic candidates are more or less tough with Bush depending on their positions. But the fact is that there is an opposition and a pluripartism system in america, so, this is a Democracy. Watch c-span channels if you can and to convince yourself.

bmk · 2003-12-13 12:33:01

But the fact is that there is an opposition and a pluripartism system in america, so, this is a Democracy. Watch c-span channels if you can and to convince yourself.

America enjoys a highly limited opposition. Anyway the opportunities available in America are drastically less than the opportunities that were available in the 19th century. America is saturated. Very ambitious people have to search for new frontiers to conquer. If not, the only thing left are turf wars, power clashes, civil wars, balkanization along racial, ethnic, religious lines, etc.

Even if you owned a hefty sum of 2 or 3 billion US dollars, really, what can you do with it that would impinge upon the social process. You can't give it away because after its been had no one would appreciate you. So your happiness from being charitable would fall into retreat. You can participate in politics but your motives and capability of fairness is always questioned in an effort to demonize you. You can go on a huge buying spree to spark a local economy and reduce poverty but that won't be too effective if you're the only one doing it.

So in my opinion the solution is the colonization of our solar system. Build new civilizations in space. Create new opportunities. Populate the human race beyond Earth. Experiment with new societies where poverty and degradation is unknown. What is freedom without dreams.

I have much more to expond upon in future postings here.

clark · 2003-12-13 14:30:29

Anyway the opportunities available in America are drastically less than the opportunities that were available in the 19th century.

Unless you happen to be black, yellow, brown, a woman, an immigrant, disabled, poor, uneducated...

We have more opportunity, not less. :;):

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-10-24 18:55:50

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#27 2003-10-24 19:07:34

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#28 2003-10-24 19:32:27

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#29 2003-10-25 21:38:19

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#30 2003-10-26 06:11:30

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#31 2003-10-27 10:14:40

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#32 2003-10-27 17:15:05

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#33 2003-10-27 20:33:09

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#34 2003-10-27 20:41:41

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#35 2003-10-27 21:02:51

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#36 2003-10-27 21:05:21

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#37 2003-10-27 21:33:04

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#38 2003-10-28 17:51:47

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#39 2003-10-29 12:39:19

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#40 2003-10-29 18:26:37

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#41 2003-10-30 08:53:58

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#42 2003-11-01 13:15:52

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#43 2003-12-12 15:56:44

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#44 2003-12-12 16:32:30

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#45 2003-12-12 17:24:17

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#46 2003-12-12 22:10:05

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#47 2003-12-13 04:14:41

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#48 2003-12-13 10:04:27

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#49 2003-12-13 12:33:01

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

#50 2003-12-13 14:30:29

Re: Nations or World Government on Mars - Nations or World Government?

Board footer