Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

BWhite · 2004-06-23 13:33:51

http://www.freestateproject.org/index.jsp]Link

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/6/21/19280/4046]More discussion here

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 14:03:00

I'm familiar with these guys.

I think you already know the answer to your question. :;): If the big problem the 'free staters' are having is clashes with the locals, then logic dictates they should find a place without locals.

I've got my own list of such locales, and it's short.

Mars, on the other hand, offers alot of land with nary a big-government socialist in sight.

Now how do Libertarians get to Mars? That's the question.

clark · 2004-06-23 14:07:30

Libertarians would make poor Martain colonists.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 14:18:09

Libertarians would make poor Martain colonists.

Elaborate.

Alt2War · 2004-06-23 14:22:51

Mars would make a libertarian paradise, imho.

My Utopia fantasy of Mars is a libertarian one.

clark · 2004-06-23 14:23:15

They will all end up dead fighting for their ideals instead of being practical and realizing that their ideals do not fit within the requirements of the environment.

10 libertarians, no problem. 10,000 libertarians, and some a-hole who didn't get enough sleep and has a bone to pick will hit the power button, and everyone dies from lack of oxygen.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 14:34:35

10 libertarians, no problem. 10,000 libertarians, and some a-hole who didn't get enough sleep and has a bone to pick will hit the power button, and everyone dies from lack of oxygen.

And libertarians are more prone to such craziness than others because...

clark · 2004-06-23 14:42:12

They are not more prone, they are just as prone. That's the issue.

Larger populations, higher population densities, and the neccessity to keep all the doors and windows sealed at all times requires a reduction of privacy that most libertarians will find appaling.

Next is the issue of public versus private ownership. Mars will require that most infrastructure is owned by the public at large, the reason being is that if you don't pay your air, water, or rent (to a private interest), where are you going to go? Outside the airlock means death.

this requires that public utilities are government owened, or regulated to the hilt to ensure that homeless people aren't sent out the airlock.

All of this requires higher levels of bueracracy than most libertarians will feel comfortable with.

Living in a dangerous environment, like space or Mars, means just about everything is a "saftey" issue, even the stuff you do inside your own home. Libertarians give me the feeling that they would rather suffer the consquences of their ideals instead of approach the actual living situation in a practical manner. I've had enough conversations with the would be martian Libertarian to feel secure that they would all end up dead very shortly, on Mars.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 15:00:10

Larger populations, higher population densities, and the neccessity to keep all the doors and windows sealed at all times requires a reduction of privacy that most libertarians will find appaling.

Not necessarily. The libertarian zeal for privacy is complemented by trust in their fellow citizens. If a colony was populated entirely by libertarians, there need not be a problem.

Next is the issue of public versus private ownership. Mars will require that most infrastructure is owned by the public at large, the reason being is that if you don't pay your air, water, or rent (to a private interest), where are you going to go?

Firstly, the issue of non-payment for food,water,etc. isn't necessarily a showstopper. Why couldn't they pay? The reason matters. Most libertarians I know understand if someone can't work due to injury or illness and would help them. But many of them don't care for the lazy and the moochers. Is it wrong then to impose our morality on them? Think about it, this can come back to bite you. If the terms are reasonable and the obligations and penalties known and freely agreed to, the grounds for serious complaint are vaporous.

Or, taking the other way, there is no reason libertarians couldn't have publicly owned utilities. Simply having such a scheme does not automatically make one a tax-and-spend big-government regulation-happy socialist. Libertarians could probably function quite well, given they'd all have the same ideals and the same understanding of the conditions they face.

Living in a dangerous environment, like space or Mars, means just about everything is a "saftey" issue, even the stuff you do inside your own home. Libertarians give me the feeling that they would rather suffer the consquences of their ideals instead of approach the actual living situation in a practical manner. I've had enough conversations with the would be martian Libertarian to feel secure that they would all end up dead very shortly, on Mars.

This assumes that libertarians are by and large unreasonable hotheads. They aren't. There are the crazies, but they aren't the majority. They wouldn't be the ones to go to Mars.

clark · 2004-06-23 15:09:30

Not necessarily. The libertarian zeal for privacy is complemented by trust in their fellow citizens. If a colony was populated entirely by libertarians, there need not be a problem.

If all men were born good, we wouldn't need laws. But they are not, and it is naieve to expect that all men will be good, and that all of their begotten children will subscribe to their same cherished beliefs. You get one generation of like minded individuals, and then they have kids. You now have two generations of different minded individuals.

Even libertarians commit crimes.

Firstly, the issue of non-payment for food,water,etc. isn't necessarily a showstopper. Why couldn't they pay? The reason matters. Most libertarians I know understand if someone can't work due to injury or illness and would help them. But many of them don't care for the lazy and the moochers.

It dosen't matter why they couldn't pay. The electric company dosen't care why, they just shut off your power. The phone company dosen't care, they just shut off your phone. Your landlord or bank dosen't care, they just foreclose or evict you.

What do you do with the people who cannot, or will not pay, for whatever reason, on Mars? You end up with a rather grim world where people are regularly given a death sentence because they can't foot the bill. If that's the Mars you want, so be it. But it certainly dosen't exemplify the best traits of man, now does it?

But many of them don't care for the lazy and the moochers. Is it wrong then to impose our morality on them?

When the result is the death of the individual, it is not wrong to impose our morality. Either it is wrong to kill, or it isn't. You tell me.

Or, taking the other way, there is no reason libertarians couldn't have publicly owned utilities. Simply having such a scheme does not automatically make one a tax-and-spend big-government regulation-happy socialist. Libertarians could probably function quite well, given they'd all have the same ideals and the same understanding of the conditions they face.

Then they stop being the libertarians that we know and understand. That's my point. Mars will not suffer the idealist who turns a blind eye to reality. Reality requires that certain long held beliefs and ideals are sacrificed in the name of basic common sense, dictated by the environment.

You want to talk about libertarian's in an open environment, fine, that has potential. Not Mars.

BWhite · 2004-06-23 15:12:06

Living on Mars will be like living on a submarine, or being part of a SEAL special ops team, or perhaps in a commune.

= = =

Could a libertarian survive after freely choosing to live in a commune?

clark · 2004-06-23 15:15:28

Hippies on a mission to no where toting guns? :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-06-23 15:16:42

Hippies on a mission to no where toting guns? :laugh:

I can grok it, man, I surely can grok it. Can you?

clark · 2004-06-23 15:19:44

I can glark it, usually. :;):

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-23 16:56:48

Stupid Libertarians stealing the word which was used by libertarians (anarchno-socialists/anarchists) for so damn long. The internet is full of "anarchno"-capitalists AKA Libertarians. None of them understand what statelessness is, though (I admit of course that not all of them want statelessness, but the ones that do are seriously misguided by thinking that their ideals will give it to them).

Technology breaks every reason for Libertarians to exist. No need to work for anything, it's there, no need to protect property because everyone has a bit of it, no possiblity of ever becoming super powerful because everyone else wouldn't allow it, etc.

The irony I feel is that state socialism isn't much different (if at all different) from state corporatism. Same dang thing, same functions, just different names and a few details left out. The Wal-Marts are no different than the State Bureaucracies of those other socialist ideals that were never met. So when Libertarians talk about "less government" I just laugh at them. There's no such thing. It's either no government or government.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-23 16:59:06

BTW, clark, I disagree that Mars would dictate public ownership of everything. Colonies, sure, but you can in fact have colonies of decentralized habitats. I've talked about this before, but essentially, your private ownership combines with everyones private ownership to equate a similar environment of that of public ownership. The difference here being that you can disassociate (take your habitat elsewhere) if you chose to (maybe the colony is overrun by bunnies).

~Eternal~ · 2004-06-23 17:29:21

Why would the Libertarians want Mars?
Only the Red Party(Akin to Earths Green) party and the Socialist want Mars :b.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-23 17:55:36

If all men were born good, we wouldn't need laws. But they are not, and it is naieve to expect that all men will be good, and that all of their begotten children will subscribe to their same cherished beliefs. You get one generation of like minded individuals, and then they have kids. You now have two generations of different minded individuals.

Giving our hypothetical colonists motivation to improve their conditions quickly. The first generation of colonists will require different traits than their offspring regardless of who goes.

When the result is the death of the individual, it is not wrong to impose our morality. Either it is wrong to kill, or it isn't. You tell me.

As far as I'm concerned whether the death is right or wrong is all in the details.

I don't think we should space people for failing to pay their bills, but if the colony accepts that policy and everyone agrees, their call.

Otherwise we're constantly imposing our morality on others, imposing our will on them. Right? Wrong? It's largely a matter of perspective.

This devil's advocate thing is kinda fun...

Then they stop being the libertarians that we know and understand. That's my point. Mars will not suffer the idealist who turns a blind eye to reality. Reality requires that certain long held beliefs and ideals are sacrificed in the name of basic common sense, dictated by the environment.

You're assuming that libertarians are bound to a rigid doctrine, they aren't. Libertarianism is flexible and adaptable. Of course the libertarians on Mars will be different from those on Earth. If changing of a group's beliefs negates their suitability to colonize Mars then we're left with fascists, state control of vital apparatus through corporatist guilds in a free market and state control of the instruments of force to enact whatever measures are necessary for the common good, for there is a new world to build and a new humanity to inhabit it.

Which is fine, 'cause I can probably get in on that.

Could a libertarian survive after freely choosing to live in a commune?

As is often the case, it depends largely on who else is in the commune.

Technology breaks every reason for Libertarians to exist. No need to work for anything, it's there, no need to protect property because everyone has a bit of it, no possiblity of ever becoming super powerful because everyone else wouldn't allow it, etc.

Technology we don't at present have. You've got some time before you're right. :;):

The irony I feel is that state socialism isn't much different (if at all different) from state corporatism. Same dang thing, same functions, just different names and a few details left out. The Wal-Marts are no different than the State Bureaucracies of those other socialist ideals that were never met. So when Libertarians talk about "less government" I just laugh at them. There's no such thing. It's either no government or government.

It's a matter of centralization. Many separate forces attempting to screw me over is preferable to a state monopoly trying for the same. The former has a hard time coordinating its efforts and is easier to elude.

So until the technology exists I must choose government, but a small one distributed as widely as is practical.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-23 20:32:12

Technology we don't at present have. You've got some time before you're right.

We'll need that technology to survive on Mars.

It's a matter of centralization. Many separate forces attempting to screw me over is preferable to a state monopoly trying for the same.

Only in reality corporations quickly form monopolies.

Alt2War · 2004-06-24 05:36:53

Why would the Libertarians want Mars?
Only the Red Party(Akin to Earths Green) party and the Socialist want Mars :b.

nothing is more liberating than vast wide open spaces with few neighbors and an irrelevant government.

clark · 2004-06-24 09:38:27

The difference here being that you can disassociate (take your habitat elsewhere) if you chose to (maybe the colony is overrun by bunnies).

Can all the nuclear engineers that live in their RV's, whom the large colony depends upon to keep the reactors going, disassociate? just up and leave, without leaving the other people with the skills neccessary to maintain their lives?

I don't think we should space people for failing to pay their bills, but if the colony accepts that policy and everyone agrees, their call.

The problem with this is that the people getting spaced generally number far fewer than those who actually are. It's still wrong. The same logic dictates slavery as a legitimate punishment for not paying your bills (indentured service). While I understand where you're coming from, it leads to desperation and desperate peopel doing desperate things. On Mars, that's a danger to everyone. It's not stable.

Otherwise we're constantly imposing our morality on others, imposing our will on them. Right? Wrong? It's largely a matter of perspective.

Some things are on the table for discussion, some are not. Take guns for instance- it's not up for discussion with you (sorry to hear about those 9 people shot in Detroit during the fireworks by the way). We differ, but I think saying that we won't kill people who pose no immediate threat is a rather non-brainer.

This devil's advocate thing is kinda fun...

Careful, or you'll be joining me outside for a breath of fresh air...

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-24 10:13:27

The problem with this is that the people getting spaced generally number far fewer than those who actually are. It's still wrong. The same logic dictates slavery as a legitimate punishment for not paying your bills (indentured service). While I understand where you're coming from, it leads to desperation and desperate peopel doing desperate things. On Mars, that's a danger to everyone. It's not stable.

Oh, it's not where I'm coming from, just throwing it out there to see if anyone bit. I don't really have a problem with imposing my rather subjective morality on others. I'm right, after all.

Some things are on the table for discussion, some are not. Take guns for instance- it's not up for discussion with you (sorry to hear about those 9 people shot in Detroit during the fireworks by the way). We differ, but I think saying that we won't kill people who pose no immediate threat is a rather non-brainer.

Everything's open for discussion, I simply haven't yet heard a compelling argument to change my position.

Even out here on the MidWest coast where the gunfire mixes with the fireworks. With significant illegal acquisition of both.

Quote
This devil's advocate thing is kinda fun...

Careful, or you'll be joining me outside for a breath of fresh air...

This is sounding a little too familiar...

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-25 08:54:45

Dangit clark, you should know better by now.

I say that simplification of technology means no more need for nuclear engineers. Push a button, it works. If it breaks, you throw it away (you can learn how to repair stuff if you want to, but it's not a prerequisite).

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-02 06:38:01

Beyond the Big Two Parties?

Prohibition Party (PRO) is a political party in the United States known for its historic opposition to the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages and as an integral part of the temperance movement. It is the oldest existing third party in the United States and the third-longest active party.
https://www.prohibitionparty.org/platform

Vermont Progressive Party, formerly the Progressive Coalition, is a political party in the United States founded in 1999 and active only in the state of Vermont. As of 2019, the party has two members in the Vermont Senate and seven members in the Vermont House of Representatives, as well as several more affiliated legislators who caucus with the Democratic Party
https://vtdigger.org/2019/11/19/progres … ow-numbers

Conservative Party of New York State is a political party founded in 1962. The party was founded due to conservative dissatisfaction with the Republican Party in New York. Running on the Conservative Party line, James L. Buckley won election to the U.S. Senate in 1970 and served for one term. Since 2010, the party has held "Row C" on New York ballots—the third-place ballot position, directly below the Democratic and Republican parties—because it received the third-highest number of votes of any political party in the 2010, 2014, and 2018 New York gubernatorial elections. According to The New York Times, the party's support "came mainly from those who would later be called Reagan Democrats—working-class, urban and suburban, often Catholic."
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/13/nyre … -with.html

Working Families Party (WFP) is a minor political party in the United States, founded in New York in 1998. There are active chapters in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210314180 … ty/422949/

Independent Party of Oregon (IPO) is a political party in the U.S. state of Oregon with more than 135,000 registrants since its inception in January 2007.The IPO is Oregon's third-largest political party and the first political party other than the Democratic Party and Republican Party to be recognized by the state of Oregon as a major political party. In 2021 State Senator Brian Boquist, a former Republican, became the only Independent member of the state legislature https://www.dailyastorian.com/opinion/c … d498a.html

Constitution Party, formerly the U.S. Taxpayers' Party until 1999, is a political party in the United States that promotes a religious conservative view of the principles and intents of the United States Constitution. The party platform is based on originalist interpretations of the Constitution and shaped by principles which it believes were set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Bible. As of July 2020, the Constitution Party has 26 members who have been elected to city council seats and other municipal offices across the United States. In terms of registered members, the party ranks fifth among national parties in the United States. https://web.archive.org/web/20161122154 … al-totals/

Green Party of the United States (GPUS) is a federation of Green state political parties in the United States. The party promotes green politics, specifically environmentalism; nonviolence; social justice; participatory democracy, grassroots democracy; anti-war; anti-racism, libertarian socialism and eco-socialism. The Greens gained widespread public attention during the 2000 presidential election, when the ticket composed of Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke won 2.7% of the popular vote. Nader was accused by Democrats of spoiling the election for Al Gore. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/09/us/2 … ntial.html

Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: A Libertarian View
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/29/re … rian-view/

old 2015 article

Fusionism, 60 Years Later
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/11/ … al-review/

OPINION:Opinion: They're Back
https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-opinion- … 00801.html
To run as a Libertarian on a statewide ballot, the party had to collect more than 51,000 signatures. It acquired over 75,000. The Libertarians must receive more than 20% of the vote...

Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Slammed for Ghoulishly Mocking Meghan McCain Grieving: ‘What the Actual F**’
https://www.mediaite.com/online/liberta … -actual-f/

Rejecting GOP request, Texas Supreme Court keeps 23 Libertarians on November ballot
https://news.yahoo.com/rejecting-gop-re … 17620.html

'American Fascism?'
https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com … scism.html

US President Joe Biden brands Trump's followers as extremist groups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHQEUc1LQ5E

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-09-02 07:04:18)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-23 13:33:51

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#2 2004-06-23 14:03:00

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#3 2004-06-23 14:07:30

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#4 2004-06-23 14:18:09

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#5 2004-06-23 14:22:51

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#6 2004-06-23 14:23:15

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#7 2004-06-23 14:34:35

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#8 2004-06-23 14:42:12

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#9 2004-06-23 15:00:10

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#10 2004-06-23 15:09:30

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#11 2004-06-23 15:12:06

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#12 2004-06-23 15:15:28

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#13 2004-06-23 15:16:42

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#14 2004-06-23 15:19:44

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#15 2004-06-23 16:56:48

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#16 2004-06-23 16:59:06

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#17 2004-06-23 17:29:21

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#18 2004-06-23 17:55:36

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#19 2004-06-23 20:32:12

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#20 2004-06-24 05:36:53

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#21 2004-06-24 09:38:27

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#22 2004-06-24 10:13:27

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#23 2004-06-25 08:54:45

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

#24 2022-09-02 06:38:01

Re: Why should libertarians go to Mars - When they can have New Hampshire

Board footer