It's all so very nice, BUT

Palomar · 2002-07-18 08:38:12

*I read last evening Dr. Zubrin's list of human rights [in _Entering Space_] which he thinks should be part and parcel of Marsian life. I agree with that list [freedom of speech, freedom from slavery, gender equality, freedom from discrimination on the basis of color, creed, national origin, etc., etc].

Others here (including me) have posted their political ideas, rights statements, etc.

What I'm wondering is, WHO is going to enforce these rights? And on what basis? A judicial system? And which one, and by what standards?

Last evening's ABC Nightly News reported the enslavement of men from India at a small factory in Oklahoma. The owner of the factory made these men sleep and eat at the facility [which in and of itself is against the law, and also he didn't feed them well]; they were paid only $3.00 per hour [a violation of the Minimum Wage]; they were made to work 12-14 hour days, and even on weekends; they were threatened to be sent back to India if they complained or didn't comply -- and that message was posted in black and white on a door which the cameraman filmed. Now this a-hole factory owner is in trouble -- rightfully so -- with the FBI, INS, and other Federal and local govenmental agencies.

So what if something akin to this were to happen on Mars? Let's say someone -- or a small group of people -- set up a factory miles away from a settlement. They "hire" other people as workers...and then totally abuse them, as this man did these gentlemen from India. Who's going to stop the abuse? And on what grounds? What if a group of angry protestors from the local settlement were to go to the factory and demand better treatment for these "employees," only to have a shotgun pointed in their faces and told they have no rights to make demands on behalf of the "employees," it's none of their business, etc., etc.?

In the Oklahoma situation, a few of the men escaped from the factory [which was enclosed with barbed wire and patrolled by an armed security man] by breaking through some boards and crawling through them, and ran to a nearby Christian church for help. The minister took them into his own home, called the authorities, and now the church is assisting, sheltering, etc., these men; very wonderful of those church folks!

Okay, any takers on this?

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-18 09:10:49

I think an effective and effecient means to enforce compliance with an accepted code of conduct for anybody living in space is to have the neccessary life support infrastructure controlled by the executive authority. Allow them then the right to shut off power, air, and water to any settlement that does not comply, or violates the code of conduct. The action can be taken with judicial decree only- which means that a judge, and a form of arbitration to hear both sides of the dispute takes place prior to the termination of life-support.

Life-support is the stick that would be used to force compliance- it also reduces the amount of violence neccessary that is sometimes needed to enforce a judicial decision. The judicial branch is simply governed by the code of conduct, and precedent.

Cobra Commander · 2002-07-18 10:42:02

Terminating life support simply because it is easier than other policing actions sets a very dangerous precedent. I, for one, would not want to trust my fate to an executive authority or a judicial panel, no matter how well intentioned.
Far from a just society where the rights of all are protected, we'd end with one where anyone who deviates from the accepted norm faces the threat of death.
Nazism without the pageantry, I'll wait for the next colony.

Mark S · 2002-07-18 12:27:12

An organized government is essential to Keeping the peace on Mars. The question is, who will govern Mars? The UN is an option, but I feel that the UN suffers from too much bureaucratic bloating and corruption to do the job. Rule of Mars by the Martians, as Zubrin advocates, would be ideal, but it will not happen until Martians are self-sufficient. The best initial form of government for Mars, then, would be government by the countries that colonize Mars. Each colony would apply the laws of its mother nation and organize a police force accordingly. It remains to be seen whether the federal government would step in ( in cases similar to the Oklahoma slave master) because of the distances between Earth and Mars. But I have a feeling that Martian authorities will have a great deal of autonomy from their earthly counterparts, much as the American colonial governors did prior to the French & Indian War.

clark · 2002-07-18 16:23:12

Terminating life support simply because it is easier than other policing actions sets a very dangerous precedent. I, for one, would not want to trust my fate to an executive authority or a judicial panel, no matter how well intentioned.

I understand the sentiment, but how is what i suggested any different than a state sanctioned execution?

I assume Cobra Commander you are an American, as such, you agree to the the law of the land- the law of the land for America allows for the judical branch to make a decree to terminate your "life support system" which is carried out by the executive branch.

The State is allowed to use force to make individuals comply with the will of the government, i.e. the people (US case). The government also has the right to uswe deadly force when neccessary to force compliance.

Instead of waiting for the next colony, you may wish to start lookinng for a new country... now.

Nirgal82 · 2002-07-19 14:59:26

Clark, I don't think giving lifesupport control to an executive authority is a very good idea.
I am faced with my own paradoxes everyday. For example, I despise America and every other government or hierarchy I know anything about, guess this makes me an anarchist although thanks to the media that term has a certain darkness to it now...
Firstly, I believe that it is very important that humans make the move to Mars (and thus allowing us to move on beyond that destination as well)
However I think our (humanity's) technological expertise is moving forward at a rate not proportional to our ethical expertise. In other words, We still go around chucking spears at our neighbors who are drinking from our streams, except now the spears are replaced with fully automatic rifles and rocket launchers and the streams are replaced by arable land and the increasingly rare dirty black fluid.
I think humanity can eventually grow to the point where hierarchies are uneccessary, however beyond my greatest wishes, I do not think that time has come. However I do think that the time has arrived for us to make a very big step towards the concept of individual soveriegnity (or perhaps individual semi-soveriegnity) And that step is moving to Mars.
An attempt there can be made to start over in a sense, this may be blind idealism but perhaps the construction of a society can be based on values that are important there and then rather than here in the US where most of its institutions and procedures are 200 years old...
As for the scenario in which some close minded Martian decides to take Mars's most valuable resource, people, and uses them for slave labor. Which is entirely possible as manpower, especially in early years will be short, and capitalist intentions, especially in the US, often outweigh morality.
I do think that the best solution to this kind of bad business would be the organized settlers from other regions organizing temporarily to first, confront directly, second, if the shotgun is pointed, boycott any goods produced and blockade any goods going there. It doesn't matter how cheap your labor is, if you cant sell your goods than youre screwed either way.
As for the punishment for the slaveowner, maybe a tour in the asteroid belt mining stuff and in return for his mining he gets to breath eat and drink, and lets have the former slaves be the primary benefactors of the goods he produces up there,
I know that there is flaws in this, expecially as my method of writing is stream of consiousness (forgive any incoherencies) {; )

Anywho, I'm not a good judge for determining others' fates when it comes to crimes they commit, except of course for murder in cold blood, which in my opinion constitutes the offender's life as worthless, and up for grabs for anyone who wants it, either to end it or to use it for labor...(controversy here too, I'm sure)

Oken doken, thats enough for now
Your friendly neighborhood Martian
-Matt

Cobra Commander · 2002-07-19 19:39:17

The State is allowed to use force to make individuals comply with the will of the government, i.e. the people (US case). The government also has the right to uswe deadly force when neccessary to force compliance.

A government requires the authority to use force to enforce the law, however the ability to simply shut off life support is not the same as any current method of doing so. In order to carry out a state sanctioned execution the offender must be apprehended, tried, convicted and finally put to death. The process takes time and a great deal of effort, thus ensuring that it is not begun without justifiable cause. When the entire process becomes as easy as flipping a switch it WILL BE abused. The action to enforce the law must be balanced by the difficulty in carrying out that enforcement.

Palomar · 2002-07-19 20:04:57

When the entire process becomes as easy as flipping a switch it WILL BE abused. The action to enforce the law must be balanced by the difficulty in carrying out that enforcement.

*Exactly. Well said, Cobra Commander.

It brings to mind the story that surfaced here in the USA today, regarding a Dr. Shipman in the UK, their worst serial killer, who killed over 200 patients by lethal injections of heroin [at least in some cases; I'm not sure of other methods he used]. The last report I heard about this creep was that he started out considering his actions "mercy killing," but then eventually started off'ing people just because they might be difficult, noncompliant with his recommendations for treatment, or otherwise irritating to him.

There's got to be a better method of ensuring protection from abuses for all the citizenry of Mars besides getting all gung-ho draconian about it.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-22 13:07:40

Cobra Commander said:

A government requires the authority to use force to enforce the law, however the ability to simply shut off life support is not the same as any current method of doing so. In order to carry out a state sanctioned execution the offender must be apprehended, tried, convicted and finally put to death.

I am perplexed by your statement, I said this:

Allow them [executive authority] then the right to shut off power, air, and water to any settlement that does not comply, or violates the code of conduct. The action can be taken with judicial decree only- which means that a judge, and a form of arbitration to hear both sides of the dispute takes place prior to the termination of life-support.

I don't understand why you have a problem with my argument- it is ineffect, the very same system we have in America (some states).

When the entire process becomes as easy as flipping a switch it WILL BE abused.

The State "flips" a switch now and you die. Considering the number of innocent people that are routinely murdered by the state in America, I could see how an argument against the death penalty could be made. However, if you accept the death penalty as a legal means for the Government to enforce the rule of law, then you shouldn't have any problem with what I propose.

Let me clarify as well, there would be a judical process prior to any executive action when dealing with the issue of life-support termination.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-23 10:50:09

Clark;

It ain't gonna happen.

Your personal little agenda for Mars is to create the most tyrannical society you can. Since Mars will probably be settled by Americans, you're SOL. And it's a good thing, too. Not only do you want to "recycle" dead bodies for no other reason than an assertion of ownership of the society over the individual, and prohibit reproduction without a license in spite of the fact that too little reproduction will be the problem (again, simply to assert ownership, regardless of the practical consequences), now you're talking about killing whole colonies that don't go along with your "executive authority". No, that's not like an execution, it is a holocaust. You're talking genocide.

Precisely to prevent the sort of thing you're advocating, the life control must and will be controled by each settlement, preferably by a town meeting-style democracy. That way, Mars avoids the tyranny you advocate (the amount of raw power you'd like to see ruling Mars is tyrannical by its existence, regardless of how or whether it's used), plus the worse possibility of all that power being used -- l-infame's scenario on a planetary scale.

Mark S · 2002-07-23 11:15:01

This forum can do without the ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. I can see an opportunity for tyranny on Mars under the scenarios this thread has discussed, but I'm certain that any peace-loving and democratic republic will put safeguards in place to prevent a non-benevolent dictatorship from coming to power and killing off vast numbers of Martians.

I can't say with certainty that Martian colonies will be American dominated, or even practice a lifestyle that is similar to that of America. It depends on whether the initial landings are conducted by America, an international effort, or by a corporate venture.

On the subject of terminating life support, I'd just like to say that I hope Martians will come to respect and protect human life from conception until natural death. I hope that they do not turn to Malthusian population control, and that they can come up with better deterrents to crime and civil disobediance than terminating life support.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-23 12:11:48

Mark S;

If you think that was a personal attack, you don't get out much. Clark is insane.

Clark doesn't just want something that can lead to tyranny, he wants tyranny itself. I'm sorry if you think that's an attack, but it's true. There's simply no nice way to accurately describe his political philosophy.

Palomar · 2002-07-23 12:31:57

*Any person who makes a philosophical or political or what-have-you statement should be willing to then explain, defend, and back that statement. I've done so myself numerous times here.

I was once accused here of "being on a high horse" and this same person said "I call them out when I see them." Was that somewhat of a personal attack against me? I simply addressed the overlying situation in which those statements were made to me, and stood my ground.

If someone -- anyone, including me of course -- makes a statement and gets "called" on it, it's their responsibility to deal with the issue, address it, defend and explain themselves, etc. If they don't care to do that, maybe they should keep their opinions to themselves.

I also feel a person can make their displeasure and disagreement known regarding another person's viewpoints and opinions, and that that is ::not:: necessarily a personal attack or adhomien argument.

Besides, it's ultimately up to Adrian to decide these matters in this forum. My 2 cents' worth.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2002-07-23 12:45:34

I don't understand why you have a problem with my argument- it is ineffect, the very same system we have in America (some states). . .

There is an important difference between what we have in America and what you advocate for Mars. Say, for the sake of argument, that I'm a criminal/terrorist/obnoxious dissident and you are the legitimate authority. I commit a murder/bomb a building/object to government policy. You, as the head of government have the authority to have me put to death, and the majority of the public wants to see it happen.
In America, you have to convince a judge that I should be captured, then you have to send out police, they have to actually FIND and CAPTURE me, then a trial begins, and finally I am put to death.
What you advocate for Mars skips from the first step to the last, it's too easy. If it's so simple, then in time it will apply not only to those first two offenses (murder, terrorism) but to the third (dissension) as well.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-23 13:37:48

Cobra;

There's a bigger difference than that. An execution is killing one single person convicted of a crime. He's talking about killing whole settlements, men, women, and children.

clark · 2002-07-23 14:02:36

A.J., thanks for your insightful and well thought out post. I appreciate your opinion, I just wish I had more than your personal feelings about me or my arguments to better understand why you disagree. I understand if your abilities are limited, please feel free to say whatever you want, I promise not to get upset or fault you for you own inability to express yourself in an adult manner. I know I haven't always, and I strive to improve myself, so if I can help you, I would love too.

Your personal little agenda for Mars is to create the most tyrannical society you can.

Quite the contrary. My personal agenda is to seriously look at the reality of settling mars and what that means to us as individuals. I have never once advocated tyranny- unless you feel that a represenative democracy which creates the laws for the people is a tyranny. You may be confused, I have limited my arguments to the actual problem whenever possible (in this case, execution by the state)- I am not stating what type of government would be in place, only that whatever governmnt IS in place, should have this ability.

Since Mars will probably be settled by Americans, you're SOL.

Well, you've nailed the nationality- why don't you enlighten us to as WHICH TYPE of American will go. I am an American, and I think I have at least as much insight into "america' as you, what i am currently suggesting is actually extending many of our shared cultural practices.

Not only do you want to "recycle" dead bodies for no other reason than an assertion of ownership of the society over the individual,

Umm, no, you are wrong. I was debating whether or not Society has the right to determine how an indivdual's body is disposed of after death. Why does discussing ideas bother you so much?

nd prohibit reproduction without a license in spite of the fact that too little reproduction will be the problem

I can accept that reproduction might be a problem- however, that avoids the issue I was addressing- one where reproduction is NOT a problem- what then? If it is, then my argument is made moot, but if reproduction isn't a probelm, then we should face the consqueces and think it through. Again, I am simply discussing ideas and possibilities- why does that bother you?

now you're talking about killing whole colonies that don't go along with your "executive authority".

How is that different than what happened at WACO? You also take me out of context- I did happen to mention that such an act would not be allowed until some sort of judicial process is completed.

No, that's not like an execution, it is a holocaust. You're talking genocide.

Um, I think you use the word genocide without comprehending the full meaning- genocide is the act of wiping out a people based on common cultural or physical traits, solely based on those reasons. How am I suggesting genocide?

If you think that was a personal attack, you don't get out much. Clark is insane.

crazy Crazy CRAZY Argrggghhh btbbthbtbjk iajsdlkjd Insane....grrrrr [foaming at the mouth] LOL- that was fun.

Well, if A.J says I be crazed, I be crazedee!

There's simply no nice way to accurately describe his political philosophy.

This should be interesting, AJ, what IS my politcal philosphy? Please, I for one would love to know.

I was once accused here of "being on a high horse" and this same person said "I call them out when I see them." Was that somewhat of a personal attack against me? I simply addressed the overlying situation in which those statements were made to me, and stood my ground.

That was me. Sorry, didn't mean it as an attack, just a statement of perceived fact. I appreciate it when people challenge my thoughts- it forces me to learn and think through what I think. If I can't defend what I say, then I will conceed the point.

Besides, it's ultimately up to Adrian to decide these matters in this forum.

I for one am a staunch advocate aginst censorship, while I appreciate Adrian's hard work, and I understand the need to maintain some semblance of civility, outright deletion of posts should be reserved for the most severe violations of civility and/or decourm. I don't think AJ is that bad, even if he has to make his displeasure with what I say personal.

In America, you have to convince a judge that I should be captured, then you have to send out police, they have to actually FIND and CAPTURE me, then a trial begins, and finally I am put to death. What you advocate for Mars skips from the first step to the last, it's too easy. If it's so simple, then in time it will apply not only to those first two offenses (murder, terrorism) but to the third (dissension) as well.

Cobra, please re-read my previous post (the QUOTES). I am not suggesting we skip that process. Judical review FIRST...look in the post and you will see.

Thanks all.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-23 15:07:17

So now anyone who finds your ideas repulsive is against ideas as such? That's pretty arrogant, you know.

I suppose what you're talking about is just extending what we already have. But a settlement designed by Harry Brown would also be an extention of what we already have. It's a question of which way you extend things, and what you extend and what you get rid of. You could create a society as bad as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia by extending what we have now or have had in the past (which is essentially what you have in mind). It wouldn't be a very American thing to do, though.

How is that different than what happened at WACO?

Not much, I suppose. You aren't saying that once an atrocity has been committed, you can do it again, are you?

You also take me out of context- I did happen to mention that such an act would not be allowed until some sort of judicial process is completed.

I'm sure that'll be a comfort to the children as they run out of oxygen.

Um, I think you use the word genocide without comprehending the full meaning- genocide is the act of wiping out a people based on common cultural or physical traits, solely based on those reasons.

A common cultural trait -- you mean like violating the standards you'd like to set up?

This should be interesting, AJ, what IS my politcal philosphy? Please, I for one would love to know.

Totalitarian. You love Rousseau, the "insane Socrates of the National Convention". You get totalitarianism right from the source. One comment you made here is interesting: you said that someone, by being American, agreed to the laws. The old "if you exist, you consent" trick. A man who tried that on a woman would rightly be imprisoned. On the other hand, if you support government by consent of the governed and by "consent" you actually mean consent, not existence, logically you must be a Rothbardian anarchist. But even Rothbard ignores consent when he needs to. No an-cap defense agency would care if a thief consented to private property (and rightly so). The proper basis of government is justice, not consent. The word "justice" can still be abused, but at least it doesn't leave you a choice of anarchism (which is both impractical and would lead to its own violations of rights) or a justification of literally anything the government might do.

My critique of your philosophy is that it lets you advocate things like killing off whole settlements. Note, of course, that I haven't really given any reason why that's a bad thing. It's self-evident, at least, once you realize there will be real human beings up there, as much as yourself.

You see, clark, you aren't just discussing ideas. You're discussing people.

clark · 2002-07-23 15:36:21

Now you see, that's an example of a good post limited to what has been offered- calling me insane does little to add any understanding, for either side of the discussion. Thanks for taking the time to reply, instead of react AJ.

o now anyone who finds your ideas repulsive is against ideas as such? That's pretty arrogant, you know.

If you find my ideas repulsive, why not limit that revulsion to the text? You offered your personal opinion of me, which moves the debate from the realm of ideas to one of deragatory and meaningless statements.

You could create a society as bad as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia by extending what we have now or have had in the past (which is essentially what you have in mind). It wouldn't be a very American thing to do, though.

You are of course correct, it wouldn't be very American would it. I suppose if we really wanted to be American we would perpetuate a society that profts at the exspense of others. A society that claims equality in principle, but anything but in practice. Privelage for some, and all men created equal... just some are more equal than others, right? Is that the American thing to do?

Not much, I suppose. You aren't saying that once an atrocity has been committed, you can do it again, are you?

By no means am I saying that. However, don't you find it disturbing that the American populace DIDN'T react to the atrocity? I was trying to show a real world example of how supposed atrocities can be acceptable. I for one am not saying it is acceptable, only that very few people spoke out against what happened- during or after. In fact, the person in charge of the people who did this is running for Govenor of one of the largest US states, and is considered a "good" canadite. Soemthing to consider as an American.

You also take me out of context- I did happen to mention that such an act would not be allowed until some sort of judicial process is completed.
I'm sure that'll be a comfort to the children as they run out of oxygen.

Oh, that's nice. Did I state that children would be killed? No. You infer what you want to suit your own view of me. My suggestion to this whole thing was based on the example given: A man enslaves the people in his colony- I suggested my solution, which would provide for the ultimate means to force compliance.

Did I somehow suggest that everyone be locked up in the base? Please. By simply turning off the power to the base you give the inhabitants TWO choices. Stay, and die. OR, put a suit on and go to another base- where you would have to consent to the new bases exsisting laws.

Once again, back to my ORIGINAL statement- all people who go to Mars would agree to the governing principles of Mars- you know, the basic fundamnetal stuff that we all SHOULD agree to as fair and equitable.

A common cultural trait -- you mean like violating the standards you'd like to set up?

What standard have I suggested that is unreasonable? What doesn't make sense to you? I'm all for respecting the diversity of thoughts and views, but if your thoughts and views represent a danger to my ability to just LIVE, then I'm sorry, you don't get em. There is but one rule that governs all else, the sanctity of self. You have any right that does not violate the sanctity of another. If you want to violate THAT standard, then there can be no room for discussion.

Totalitarian. You love Rousseau, the "insane Socrates of the National Convention".

Totalitarian? How? I have suggested roles for the State- I have never really delved into how the State is composed. The State has certain powers, the different forms of government are the measn by which it enacts the will of the people- that's it. Totalitarian is a form of government as legitimate as a democracy- it becomes illigitimate once it no longer represents the will of the people- just like a represenative democracy becomes illigitimate when it's represenatives no longer express the will of the people. I have been discussing FUNCTION, not FORM.

One comment you made here is interesting: you said that someone, by being American, agreed to the laws. The old "if you exist, you consent" trick.

Not if you exsist, but if you take part in Society in any shape, then you become a part of that Society. The means to exclude yourself from society exsist, as such, your inaction to avail yourself of those opportunities implies that you wish to remain a part of Society.

The proper basis of government is justice, not consent.

And? Justice can only come through equality- something Rosseau repeadtly comments on in Social Contract. I suggest you read Social Conntract a bit more closely. The word equality cannot be abused. Either something is equal, or it not. No equality means no justice.

My critique of your philosophy is that it lets you advocate things like killing off whole settlements.

LOL. Thanks for equating my philosphy with the bible. Have you read the bible? It allows for many of the things I suggest- do you hold it with the same contempt?

A philosphy is like a gun, depending on who uses it, and for what ends, determines the value ot it.

You see, clark, you aren't just discussing ideas. You're discussing people.

What people? LOL. Who on Earth is on Mars?!

Until facts change, I am, and will be, just discussing ideas.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-24 01:59:18

You are of course correct, it wouldn't be very American would it. I suppose if we really wanted to be American we would perpetuate a society that profts at the exspense of others. A society that claims equality in principle, but anything but in practice. Privelage for some, and all men created equal... just some are more equal than others, right? Is that the American thing to do?

Since by the above you apparently have in mind the morally and practically superior system generally called capitalism, the answer is a cheerful "yep".

However, don't you find it disturbing that the American populace DIDN'T react to the atrocity?

Very.

Why the however? You just denied defending prospective atrocities with past ones. Are you defending prospective atrocities with apathy about past ones?

Did I somehow suggest that everyone be locked up in the base? Please. By simply turning off the power to the base you give the inhabitants TWO choices. Stay, and die. OR, put a suit on and go to another base- where you would have to consent to the new bases exsisting laws.

So instead of killing them if they don't comply with the central authority, you'll kill them if they don't comply with the central authority and then don't move when ordered. A slight improvement, I suppose, but the point is still: submit or die.

And here's an interesting term: "have to consent". Normally, when someone threatens you with death it isn't called "consent".

I'm all for respecting the diversity of thoughts and views, but if your thoughts and views represent a danger to my ability to just LIVE, then I'm sorry, you don't get em.

And now, unbidden, you've started calling for censorship. Which thoughts and views make you feel so threatened?

There is but one rule that governs all else, the sanctity of self. You have any right that does not violate the sanctity of another.

Sounds pretty libertarian. Too bad you mean exactly none of it.

If you want to violate THAT standard, then there can be no room for discussion.

You've been calling for violating it in just about every message of yours I've seen, and we're talking now, aren't we?

Totalitarian? How? I have suggested roles for the State- I have never really delved into how the State is composed.

Well, yeah. You are talking about the role of the government. Which is exactly what the term "totalitarian" deals with.

totalitarian
adj 1: characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control; "a totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul"- Arthur M.Schlesinger, Jr. 2: of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according to which the state regulates every realm of life; "totalitarian theory and practice"; "operating in a totalistic fashion"

Not if you exsist, but if you take part in Society in any shape, then you become a part of that Society.

And being part of a society does not indicate consent any more than existence does. "You let me buy you a drink, therefore..."

And what's with the capitalized S?

The means to exclude yourself from society exsist, as such, your inaction to avail yourself of those opportunities implies that you wish to remain a part of Society.

But they won't exist on Mars, will they? As you yourself said, the people from your destroyed settlement would have to consent. Even if you tell them to go back to Earth, after the first generation that probably won't be medically possible.

I suppose you could tell them to go found their own settlement, but then either you'd take over their life support, or not. If you do, you really haven't let them leave at all. If not, you haven't done anything about the scenario at the top, which means all this is about control and nothing else.

Justice can only come through equality

I said the word justice can be abused. Here we see an example.

I suggest you read Social Conntract a bit more closely.

Nope, sorry. The position of "dead French guy I pay attention to" is currently filled by Frederic Bastiat. I do not expect an opening.

The word equality cannot be abused. Either something is equal, or it not.

And for the sake of your "equality", you'd establish a state which can order cities out of existence, and otherwise act without limit. Which means that there really isn't any equality at all. The rulers, or the majority, or whoever, has the power, and the other guys do not. Any state necessarily introduces inequality of power, totalitarian ones especially. And without a state, you've still got inequality of power, based on who has more muscle and/or firepower.

Attempting to eliminate economic inequality means putting citizens, together with all they own, in the hands of the state. This means that those who control the state own everything and merely let others borrow, which is much more inequality than you see in capitalism, where the poor at least own something.

In short, equality is impossible.

No equality means no justice.

No freedom means no justice.

No property means no justice.

BTW, this is where you must abrogate your "one rule that governs all else". Unless you through the sanctity of self out the window, people will establish all sorts of hierarchies. It's as natural as men and women falling in love, and therefore requires nothing less than totalitarianism to prevent.

LOL. Thanks for equating my philosphy with the bible. Have you read the bible? It allows for many of the things I suggest- do you hold it with the same contempt?

After all that tyranny in the name of equality, nothing like a little anti-Christian bigotry to complete the French Revolution atmosphere.

What people? LOL. Who on Earth is on Mars?!
Until facts change, I am, and will be, just discussing ideas.

Will you want to actually impliment them once Mars is settled, or is all this being said for shock value?

clark · 2002-07-24 08:24:26

Since by the above you apparently have in mind the morally and practically superior system generally called capitalism,

I wonder how you justify the moral superiority of capitalism. Superior to what and how?

Why the however? You just denied defending prospective atrocities with past ones. Are you defending prospective atrocities with apathy about past ones?

Certainly not, yet you speak of atrocities that do not exsist (Mars). I have provided an idea, from which you extrapolate "atrocities" occuring- fine, but what do you expect me to do? Defend actions that have not taken place? You yourself urge for "justice" as the defender of our liberty, to which I am inclined to agree- which is also made evident in that a judicial process occurs prior to the act of life support termination. When, how, and if this ability is used is not for you or I to say- but the framework can be legitimately discussed.

So instead of killing them if they don't comply with the central authority, you'll kill them if they don't comply with the central authority and then don't move when ordered. A slight improvement, I suppose, but the point is still: submit or die.

You are correct, Submit or die. Those are your choices. What are your choices in America if you do not like a law but are unable to change it? As far as I can figure, you can submit. OR you can break the law, and then be subjected to whatever punishment is associated with that crime- which may include death. Can you change the laws peacefully- yes. Have I somehow DENIED that ability in ANYTHING I have offered? No.

And here's an interesting term: "have to consent". Normally, when someone threatens you with death it isn't called "consent".

The "have" has to do with permanently residing in a new base- think of it like moving to another country- if you want to live there, you HAVE to agree to abide by THEIR laws. Let's not forget WHY these people are forced to move as well, they have broken a law which has warranted the action of life support termination- which laws that would be, I certainly haven't made any indications as to which laws should warrant which punishment.

I'm all for respecting the diversity of thoughts and views, but if your thoughts and views represent a danger to my ability to just LIVE, then I'm sorry, you don't get em.
And now, unbidden, you've started calling for censorship. Which thoughts and views make you feel so threatened?

So if you go around telling people that you are going to kill me, I am without recourse? If people advocate for the violent overthrow of the government and advocate for the killing of civilians, we as a society are without justification in preventing these people from carrying out their threats prior to action? I explained, if your thoughts or views call for violating the sanctity of another individuals life, then you should be prevented. There is no reason, other than immediate self-defense of self, that requires you to violate anyone else's self. It is akin to censoring people from shouting fire in a crowded theater. Is that censorship to you?

Sounds pretty libertarian. Too bad you mean exactly none of it.

I am as free as I am independant of anyone else. The more we become dependant on others, the less true freedom we have becuase part of it is dependant upon another. On Earth, humans alone can be pretty self-sufficent in providing for our own basic needs- as such, we have the opportunity for a great deal of freedom. On Mars, everything and everyone becomes much more interdependant on one another- this reduces the amount of personal freedom we each can have (compared to us now). All of my concerns are formulated from the environmental reality on mars- I am not trying to advocate social policy, only to figure out what makes sense.

If you want to violate THAT standard, then there can be no room for discussion.
You've been calling for violating it in just about every message of yours I've seen, and we're talking now, aren't we?

Please site ONE post ANYWHERE where I have called for violating the sanctity of self. One. I have called for the REGULATION of liberty- which we do now on Earth. The regulation I have called for is where individual liberty meets- reproduction- which can affect my personal liberty if we live in a closed environment plastic bubble. burial of the dead- there may be a need, caused by the lack of organic material on Mars, that may require that bodies be disposed in a specfic way to ensure the succes or survival of the martian colony. Drug use- again, an individual behavior that could jepordize everyone else's rights. I haven't called for religious oppresion, economic oppresion, or any other hallmarks of totalitarian states.

2: of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according to which the state regulates every realm of life;

i don't believe I have called for EVERY realm, but I will work on it. K?

Do you honestly believe that the environment on mars will allow people the lattitude of freedom we enjoy on Earth? Why? It is a closed environment. It is a highly advanced machine that will keep people alive- one that requires a massive amount of resources and energy to create. It will be like living on a nuclear sub.

The means to exclude yourself from society exsist, as such, your inaction to avail yourself of those opportunities implies that you wish to remain a part of Society.
But they won't exist on Mars, will they?

No, it probably won't. That's one of the reasons I suggested anyone going to mars agree to the over-riding "bill of rights" (whatever you want to call it). A scenerio where people violate that code is what I envisoned when the Executive authority to terminate life support is utilized. If you think this is still wrong, I would ask if you thought the Civil War was wrong- the federalization of the National Guard in Alabama, etc. It is in effect, the same thing.

If not, you haven't done anything about the scenario at the top, which means all this is about control and nothing else.

Governments must maintain the monoploy of force, and should be the only instution with the legitimacy of use of force- it's how you get people to comply and makes the whole thing called "justice" possible.

ustice can only come through equality
I said the word justice can be abused. Here we see an example.

Hardly. can you have justice through inequality? Equality is justice- it means equal, as in fair. Justice is also the equal application of law to all people.. equal. I say we drop this as we at least agree in principle, but not in language. ???

And for the sake of your "equality", you'd establish a state which can order cities out of existence, and otherwise act without limit.

Act without limit? Where do you get that from? I haven't even approached the issues of checks and balances. I am discussing function, not form.

Which means that there really isn't any equality at all. The rulers, or the majority, or whoever, has the power, and the other guys do not.

I really don't want to keep posting this over and over again (but I guess I will if you keep making this stupid, yes STUPID, accusation about my argument). I HAVE STATED THAT A JUDICIAL PROCESS WOULD TAKE PLACE PRIOR TO TERMINATION OF LIFE SUPPORT BY AN EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY. The rulers, the majority, the whoever would have to go through the courts- equality through the application of justice (is that better?) ensures that all members of scoiety are treated the same in regards to the application of law or punishment.

This means that those who control the state own everything and merely let others borrow, which is much more inequality than you see in capitalism, where the poor at least own something.

let them eat cake, eh?

Yes the poor do at least own something, which is a great way to stave off rebellion and maintain the staus quo. Your darling capitalism of "less inequality" has ended up with 1% of the people controlling almost 50% of the wealth, 10% of the people controlling the remaining 90%, with the rest of the population to divy up the last 10% of the 50%...

In short, equality is impossible.

So is proof of God, but we still try.

No freedom means no justice.

not quite. If some are free, and others are not- then there can be no justice for those who are not free- there is no justice until there is equality. Justice exsists to reestablish equality.

No property means no justice.

If no property exsists, what would you need justice for?

BTW, this is where you must abrogate your "one rule that governs all else". Unless you through the sanctity of self out the window, people will establish all sorts of hierarchies.

Please clarify, I don't understand your meaning.

Will you want to actually impliment them once Mars is settled, or is all this being said for shock value?

Not for shock value, I am actually exploring the possibbilities. I listen to others views, which have tended to be more "libertarian" in optimism regarding mars. I have read KSR and other novels and I find the social structure depicted in the stories and in people's expectations to be unrealistic.

Mars is not the American Fronteir. Mars is not a jaunt or a holidy. Mars is not Earth, filled with clear air, puddles of water to drinnk from, and miles of land that we can easily walk unencumbered on.

Mars will be isolated. Mars will be dangerous. Mars will require a lot of technology, a lot of infrastructure, and a lot of resources. It will be an investment that exceeds all other human endeavours. You honestly think that no one will have a problem with free drug use in a multi-billion/trillion dollar investment? Do you honestly think that you will have the same lattitude of movement and freedom in a closed environment where any one person can kill everyone else?

Sure, a base of 6 people is a moot point.

A colony of several hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? I wish it were otherwise, please show me how it can be otherwise- but I just don't see it.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-24 10:36:15

I was making a long reply when my POS computer deleted it.

You aren't worth retyping the whole thing.

clark · 2002-07-24 10:57:09

My world is shattered.

You felt I was worth enough to apparently merit an explanation to what happened to your reply, but not the actual reply... well, gee, thanks.

You could have saved yourself the trouble and not replied at all, your choice.

Good luck with the computer.

Byron · 2002-07-24 12:25:07

I figure this is just as a good time as any to throw my 2 cents in...

Clark is absolutely correct when he says that the reality of the Martian environment will limit the amount of personal freedom...and I would have to say that this limitation will go a lot further than whether one can do drugs or how their bodies will be desposed after death...indeed, if living in a Martian settlement is like being on a nuclear submarine as he suggests, virtually every aspect of individual's lives will be severely impacted, often in ways we might find detestable here on Earth. Each individual will be like the cells of a single organism...working together to ensure survival. That means everyone will have to work continously (in whatever they are best skilled at), and everyone would have to agree on what the "best" way to do things...."dissent" may be fine here on Earth...but on Mars, it could very well spell death and destruction.

That means, and I mean everyone, will have to share equally in both the labor and the sharing of resources of the base/colony/settlement...not unlike those "communes" they had back in the 60's. There can be no "rich" people who sit back and tell others what to do...everyone will have to be of equal rank and position within the Martian society, otherwise it will not work. Everyone will have equal responsibility and equal access to the products of their labor.

But what all this means is, however, that the common "value" system (as necessitated by the reality of the environment) of the Mars inhabitants will have to come from each and every individual, *not* from a "central authority" as Clark suggests. Sure, a central authority will be needed to manage things for maximum efficiency, but the values of the "Society," which are the values of hard work, living in perfect harmony with others, equal sharing of resources and so on, will have to come from ALL the individuals, not just the elected officials, judges, the "world body", etc. Otherwise, the whole idea of a Martian settlement is just not going to work.

Basically, before anyone can go to Mars to stay for a while or to become the founding members of a permanent settlement, they will have to "agree" to "agree" with the conditions of living on Mars, which I repeat, will involve a *whole* lot more than just alcohol is O.K. or not. This means we'd better be picking some level-headed, sure-minded people to go...ones that won't crumple at the loss of their privacy or simple homesickness for Earth. It also means that everyone will essentially, by virtue of being granted the privilege to go to Mars, will have to treat everyone else with *equal* treatment and *respect*, no matter how much they may get on each other's nerves. If we have any kind of disruptive dissent within the community at all...it could spell disaster, and if the colony is being supported by Earth-bound investors (which nearly 100% certain in the beginning, at least), the idea of a "civil war" brewing on Mars would most likely spell the end of support of that colony.

So that's the biggest "change" that humans will have to make before a Martian settlement is established, IMHO: Instead of competing with each other, they will have to COOPERATE with each other, and this will have to be carried out to the nth degree.

Assuming that if this is what indeed what takes place (assuming that we ever get people to Mars..LOL)...I think this will cause a massive paradigm shift in how humans interact with each other. The idea of "government" as it exists here on Earth could very well be made extinct on Mars...if everyone willingly cooperates with everyone else, and everyone has 100% trust of everyone else...that would pave the way to establishing the "ideal" society where we don't have to have massive security forces, prisons, invasive searches, volumes and volumes of laws, propaganda; all the crap we have to deal with in the U.S. and most other countries here today. The already over-extended resources of a Martian colony just will not be able to sustain such a "legal" infrastructure. This means no lawyers on Mars, btw...

Of course, we must deal with the "reality" of the human condition...in that it's just *not* in the nature of people to fully cooperate with others, not to compete for a greater share of resources or power, etc. In that case, I think it would be prudent to wait...for centuries, if necessary, before we attempt something such a permanent Mars community. Robotic exploration, Mars Direct, etc, yes....but permanent residency in a place where the human condition must meet the requirements outlined above...that's just going to have to wait until people change to the point we can pull something like that off, and that may take a while. (sorry, Phobos )

Of course, if technology advances to the point that space travel becomes ultra-cheap, and machines are developed to the point that they would be able to perform a majority of tasks on Mars, enabling people to live there in Earth-like comfort and safety...by all means, let's go! But if we're talking about this from Clark's viewpoint of a small-scale, enclosed "submarine"-type of environment...I do have to hand it to him in the myriad ways he has pointed out to us the actual difficulties of living in a place such as Mars...it ain't gonna be easy, that's for sure... ???

B

Bill White · 2002-07-24 13:13:27

Clark is absolutely correct when he says that the reality of the Martian environment will limit the amount of personal freedom...and I would have to say that this limitation will go a lot further than whether one can do drugs or how their bodies will be desposed after death...indeed, if living in a Martian settlement is like being on a nuclear submarine as he suggests, virtually every aspect of individual's lives will be severely impacted, often in ways we might find detestable here on Earth. Each individual will be like the cells of a single organism...working together to ensure survival. That means everyone will have to work continously (in whatever they are best skilled at), and everyone would have to agree on what the "best" way to do things...."dissent" may be fine here on Earth...but on Mars, it could very spell death and destruction.

For the record, I concur. . .

And, no one who disagrees with this will be among the first chosen to go, not unless the sponsors wish to merely throw away many billions of dollars.

And - looking at the "drug question" again - I see that Byron gave "my answer" back when he first opened the thread,

"Rules that work best are those left unspoken. . ."

So Byron, why did you ask the question anyway?

clark · 2002-07-24 13:48:53

Well said Byron, I wish I was able to summarize myslef as clearly.

But what all this means is, however, that the common "value" system (as necessitated by the reality of the environment) of the Mars inhabitants will have to come from each and every individual, *not* from a "central authority" as Clark suggests.

I think this may be why people have the wrong impression of some of my statements. A central authority is nothing more than the physical manifestation of Society's will. What that means, is that if you are a democratic republic, whatever "central authority" you have to represent you would make the decisions that the represenatives YOU elected decide it should be able to make.

In America, we have a central authority- it's called the federal government. Every system of government has a central authority- how that central authority is composed, derived, acts, controlled, etc is determined by the PEOPLE. I have never once called for a tyranny or a democracy in this discussion (or many of the others).

Otherwise, Byron, you understand my point view.

So AJ, does that make Byron crazy too?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-18 08:38:12

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#2 2002-07-18 09:10:49

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#3 2002-07-18 10:42:02

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#4 2002-07-18 12:27:12

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#5 2002-07-18 16:23:12

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#6 2002-07-19 14:59:26

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#7 2002-07-19 19:39:17

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#8 2002-07-19 20:04:57

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#9 2002-07-22 13:07:40

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#10 2002-07-23 10:50:09

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#11 2002-07-23 11:15:01

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#12 2002-07-23 12:11:48

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#13 2002-07-23 12:31:57

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#14 2002-07-23 12:45:34

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#15 2002-07-23 13:37:48

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#16 2002-07-23 14:02:36

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#17 2002-07-23 15:07:17

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#18 2002-07-23 15:36:21

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#19 2002-07-24 01:59:18

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#20 2002-07-24 08:24:26

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#21 2002-07-24 10:36:15

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#22 2002-07-24 10:57:09

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#23 2002-07-24 12:25:07

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#24 2002-07-24 13:13:27

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#25 2002-07-24 13:48:53

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

Board footer