My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

PeterJ · 2004-10-09 21:03:48

I can't believe what i am seeing on this forum. Im seeing thoughts of anarchy, communism, extremist religion, and numerous constitutions all with "great rights" [insert sarcastic tone].

Here is my optimistic approach:

And while this wont happen straight away, eventually when mars becomes independant this is what should happen.

Government: A people's democratic government elected by the people with a system of

World -> Federal -> State -> local

With numerous independant watch bodies to make sure everything stays right. With all goverment officials elected by the people.

Rights and laws:

I saw one constitution which looked like it combined all the problems of america and other countries into one paper.

Guns and weapons: Firearms outlawed. The government military may have weapons to an extent for defence but civilians do not need weapons. The idea of a weapon for self defence is stupid because you will end up killing yourself or your family and it just doesn't work.

Religion: Freedom to practice any religion you wish with certain conditions.

1. ABSOLUTELY no mixture of religion and politics. It is not in a nations best interest for religious values to determine the course of a nation.
2. TOLERANCE acceptance and respect of your fellow person's religion.
3. Do not try to change, convert, or any other way ram religion down anyones throat.
4. So practice what you want, privately.

A fair go for all. No discimination based on sexuality, gender, or race.

Jails and capital punishment:

1. NO death penalty, except for extreme crimes where there is no hope of change. Im thinking genocide, or serial killers.

2. Jails, but inmates are put to work to better the overall state of mars. It can be gardening or smashing rocks, whatever.

3. Have the same laws pretty much which are here on earth. Except the laws which currently discrimate, such as the no stem cell research and same gender marriage.

Most importantly a voice for all people. Every year or so a forum should be held, where all citizens can raise an issue that is important to them and is acted upon.

And all things must be done for the benefit of the entirety of mars.

Buying of land, is at first to be distributed from the government and later on you must apply to the government and stating how you would use the land to benefit mars and otherwise use it. Eventually as the population grows land will have to be bought.

EDUCATION and HEALTH:

Every single child should have the chance at a good education. And everyperson should have a chance at healthcare.

hrrm, can't think of any other topics quite yet. Ill edit this later.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-10 01:19:36

A warm welcome to New Mars, PeterJ.

A nice agenda for Mars, in my view, though one or two of the legal eagles here might want to modify the terminology and flesh it out a bit.

Have you joined The Mars Society yet? If not, check out their website at http://www.marssociety.org]www.marssociety.org and give it some thought. The more members a space advocacy group has, the more influential it is. And we need as much influence as we can get!

PeterJ · 2004-10-10 02:06:38

Yeah, im a long time lurker first time poster. Wouldve posted on a few things allready but i prefer to read and everythings is pretty much said anyway.

And i might join the Mars Society Australia when i have enough cash, i.e. when im out of university and have a halfdecent job.

By the way i started reading this fairly good book by Ben Bova titled "Mars" it describes the first human trip to mars and is quite a good read (so far anyway im on page 191)

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-10 07:23:44

Welcome PeterJ.

Just a few little quibblings...

Every single child should have the chance at a good education. And everyperson should have a chance at healthcare.

A chance at education and healthcare, or the thing itself? Are you suggesting opportunities or entitlements?

2. Jails, but inmates are put to work to better the overall state of mars. It can be gardening or smashing rocks, whatever.

Be very careful with using prisoners as a labor force. In so doing you create an economic incentive to convict, and therefore open the door to rampant corruption.

Guns and weapons: Firearms outlawed. The government military may have weapons to an extent for defence but civilians do not need weapons. The idea of a weapon for self defence is stupid because you will end up killing yourself or your family and it just doesn't work.

Two questions come to mind. First, if these people are too incompetent to safely store and/or operate a small-caliber firearm how do you expect them to survive on Mars? All that technology they rely on for life and they can't even operate a simple mechanical device without accidentally killing someone? And second, your position suggests that the people are stupid, violent imbeciles. If they can't be trusted with weapons, which they may use to hurt another individual, then surely they can't be trusted with a vote, which they may use to hurt the entire populace. No, such people are ill-suited to self rule, they need a heavier hand.

If you can't trust the people to make basic decisions about their own lives, then any democracy is a sham.

~Eternal~ · 2004-10-10 08:58:08

I'm leary of social democratic constitutions.

Either a Constitution should be objective, with the legislative branch having control over issues other than things like civil rights.

Reasons why we should have an objective Constitution?
Look at the socialist USSR constitution and the libertarian US constitution(+ammendments), everyone get's screwed.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-10 10:42:03

Free land for homesteaders; that did exist in both Canada and the US. It's difficult to raise money if you don't sell land, but if you want rapid settlement then giving away land is a good incentive. At the time most people were farmers, so free land meant a family could start their livelihood without much start-up capital. Settlers expected to cut wood from their land to build a house, so they only needed a few tools. Hammer, axe, saw, plough, whittling knife, plough, scythe, and a bag of seeds. At the time they sewed their own clothes, so add needle and scissors. Electric sewing machines didn't exist back then, and most didn't start with a treadle sewing machine, they hand-sewed with a needle. Today people have higher expectations, and Mars will require a lot of equipment to start a homestead. They'll need a pressurized habitat, life support, spacesuit, power for life support and heat, and chemical processing equipment to turn Mars air into something breathable and soil into something fertile. If a settler can afford all that, then a small purchase fee for land is reasonable.

Levels of government: I would create only two: federal and municipal. Federal government would have jurisdiction over the entire planet, orbital space, and both moons. Municipal government would have jurisdiction over just one town. There's no need for any state, provincial, or county governments. We don't need a feudal system, and don't want to create arbitrary groupings that could be pitted one against another.

I would keep federal laws very simple and minimalist. "Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal." There are details to that, but other than details stay pretty much out of people's lives. No marriage laws at all, leave that to municipal government. No "statutory rape", again leave that to municipal government. Violent rape is assault and battery, let that law cover it. Consenting activity between individuals is something the federal government should stay out of. People have strong feelings regarding reproductive traditions, leave that to municipal government and hence restricted to bylaws.

Drugs: I think getting yourself addicted to something like crack is stupid, but keep federal laws minimalist with the principle of protecting people from attack, not controlling what they do to themselves. I would make operating a motor vehicle within a city require a driver's license, but outside city limits in the "outback" you're on your own. Operating a motor vehicle inside a city while under the influence of a narcotic (including alcohol) in any amount, even one beer or one toke, would result in immediate suspension of your license for one year. Operating a motor vehicle within city limits while under suspension would result in life-long suspension of your license, and ceasure of your vehicle. Showing up at work while under the influence would be grounds for immediate dismissal. What you do in your off time is your business (or problem). Operating a motor vehicle in the "outback" while under the influence would be legal, but would invalidate any insurance coverage. If you crash into a crater while drunk, nobody would pay for repairs to the vehicle but yourself. Flying an aircraft or spacecraft is different; it's too easy to hit a city or somebody's homestead. A pilot's license would be required everywhere; and you couldn't even have one beer before flying.

Generally Mars should be a place to get away from strict regulation.

Scott G. Beach · 2004-10-10 18:16:52

PeterJ:

You wrote, "ABSOLUTELY no mixture of religion and politics. It is not in a nations best interest for religious values to determine the course of a nation."

As a matter of personal preference, I support the proposition that there should be a "high wall of separation" between church and state. However, under my draft Constitution of the Provisional Government of Mars (see http://www.geocities.com/scott956282743 … ngmars.htm ), a Martian settlement could have a theocratic government. I believe that people who have obtained a "Settlement Charter" pursuant to that Constitution should have the option of establishing a settlement that has a theocratic government.

Robert:

You wrote, "Levels of government: I would create only two: federal and municipal." I agree, with the proviso that municipal governments should be authorized by the federal constitution to enter into joint powers agreements. This would allow any number of settlements to pool their resources to build and operate research laboratories, colleges, universities, and other institutions. And the federal courts should have the power to adjudicate disputes between municipal governments that are parties to joint powers agreements.

PeterJ · 2004-10-10 19:11:34

Sorry i took a while to get back to this but i gotta sleep you know.

About the education thing everyone should get a good education but not everyone will want to stay on to further study, some might want to leave at the equivalent of grade 10 i think that would be the start of college to you guys? and go immediately into the workforce. I mean not everyone wants a "higher level" job like a doctor and stuff. Anyway thats what i meant by chance.

About the levels of government i just thought it would be too much for one government to control the entire planet without help from a number of levels of government. But just two levels could work.

About the jails/convicting thing: Sorry i didn't add more details, but of course there is more to it than that, actually (whats the word) redemption or recovery system like on earth were the less serious criminals are taught how to function properly in society, the wrongs of their actions and are released back into society. There would be of course limits on labour work such as time and what type of convict can is put to work. And of course other types of punishment like fines and community service. And of course we would have a indepenant watch body to stop corruption.

About the firearms: Yeah i think i went overboard there. Let me clarify myself, i was just worried of mars turning into the US, where every man and his dog has a firearm. Hell you can get automatic weapons. Its a fact that in the US there is some 11000 firearm related deaths each year but in most other countries it is less than 200. Something like that is crazy, but of course people should be given a choice. Perhaps just restrictions on types of weapons. And permits, with background checks and stuff. And yearly checkins with police. But yes i was wrong and people should be allowed to defend themselves. But lets hope we have a society were you dont have get into a situation where you are forced to kill to defend your family.

Yeah freeland at first is a good idea to encourage growth in communities, and growth in population, etc.

I think laws need to be more detailed then commandment type things as criminals will be able to get away in numerous loopholes. Hell even on mars theres still gonna be snakelike lawyers.

About drugs: In any circumstance where you threaten anyone else's life or property than there should definently be a law against drugs and that circumstance. But i can understand if you just use it for your own personal use without harming anyone (except yourself of course). But this is a very touchy issue and would a lot more serious discussion.

Religion and politics: I am aware this is also a very controversial subject as many people have very different opinons. But it is my strong belief that anything that creates such a strong difference among people, and people cant tolerate that. Will eventually lead to violence.

for example: (random example so dont nitpick and say, oh i bet if it was this religion it woudlnt of happened): Say we get a particularly strong christian believer who is absolutely sure of himself that gays and lesbians are totally wrong and against nature. Sure hes not monster so he doesnt kill them all but he brings in legislation that pressures them and makes them even more seperated from society and so they start rebelling and violence insues. Of course there are many other examples, some not even to do with religion.

But overall we must have a single unified goals. Everything done for the good of the planet.

clark · 2004-10-11 11:25:30

"Won't someone think of the planet!" :laugh:

What kind of planet would you have Mars be?

RobertDyck · 2004-10-11 13:00:16

On Mars, there are no dangerous animals from which to protect yourself, and there are no animals to hunt. So why do you need weapons? The only reason would be to kill people. Canada is one of those countries with lower death rate by firearms. As long as I've been alive, there has been a ban on personal ownership of weapons of war such as fully automatic riffles, and registration of hand guns. Riffles and shot guns were only registered recently, and that's still a hot debate; most people see it as ineffective at reducing crime while the cost has been astronomical. The registry was supposed to cost $3 million per year, but it cost over $800 million to set-up and the current government promises to "reduce" cost to $25 million per year. Farmers and hunters complain that it's an impediment to their livelihood, but most people live in cities and they're concerned about the cost. Universally, everyone wants to get rid of the riffle/shotgun registry, but opposition parties have made it such a partisan issue that there's no way the government could do so without loosing voter respect. Very few people have handguns in their home, which is why there's so much less death by firearms.

I'll give you a couple examples. In 1991 my house was broken into 3 times; valuables were stolen. After the 3rd break-in I installed a concealed closed circuit video security system. In 1992 the guy broken in again; the tape recorded his activity. He was in the house for over 57 minutes; the police said it was unusual for someone to spend that much time. I had also replaced the deadbolt on the front door with a double deadbolt, so you couldn't get out that door without a key. I was going to replace the side door with a steel one, but it wasn't installed before he broke in again. The tape showed him checking for something out the front window, probably his get-away ride, and holding his crowbar in a position ready to attack. He was obviously worried I would catch him and he was ready to attack me with the crowbar. He didn't have a gun. The police told me this was the only Crime Stoppers video that was the real thing, not a re-enactment; they did catch him. He broke into my house 4 times, my next door neighbour's house once, and was caught in a bar attempting to steal money from a drug dealer, but only spent 2 years in a federal penitentiary. However, I'm told that penitentiary is so rough that a convict that small and skinny would end up as someone's "girlfriend". Conclusion: in Canada this thief didn't use a gun.

In the U.S. a woman told me of her break-in. She had broken up with her husband. One day a stranger opened the door with a key and entered her house. Only she and her ex-husband had a key, her daughter was a baby and she didn't keep a key outside. She quietly ran to the closet where a shotgun was kept. She pulled it down and went to load it. It was never kept loaded, but she couldn't fit any shells in because it was already loaded. As soon as she discovered it was loaded, the intruder opened the door. She pointed the gun at him and told him to get out, but he grabbed the barrel. She discharged the weapon, it took a chunk of his body out and he went down. He continued to move so she shot him in the head while he lay on the ground. Her baby started crying after the first gun blast. She was arrested, but the court ruled it was self-defence. Lawyers found the ex-husband had taken out life insurance on both her and the baby without telling her. Even the judge suspected the ex-husband had hired this street person to murder his wife and baby, but no one could prove that. Needless to say she changed the locks. Conclusion: in the U.S. someone who broke into a house attempted to use the homeowners own gun against her.

Guns are dangerous, and there's no justification for there existence on Mars.

clark · 2004-10-11 13:05:14

One might argue that the gun saved her life. One might argue that life insurance endangered her life.

Eh?

BWhite · 2004-10-11 13:07:15

Guns are dangerous, and there's no justification for there existence on Mars.

Emotionally, I might agree.

However, given the McGyver (spellling?) type skills that will be needed to survive on Mars making guns (or worse) will be very easy to do.

A rapid prototype machine and software and voila! - - a ceramic pistol.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-11 13:26:23

I wasn't going to push this again, but since it's on anyway...

However, given the McGyver (spellling?) type skills that will be needed to survive on Mars making guns (or worse) will be very easy to do.

Precisely. Weapons will be a reality, keeping them off-world is simply not possible if humans are going to be living there for any length of time.

Interesting story Robert, but I fail to find any support for banning firearms in it. Harsh sentencing in federal prisons for using one in a crime certainly, that actually tries to deal with the problem.

Your house was broken into four times? Doesn't that indicate a problem in and of itself? Maybe, just maybe, weapons aren't the real problem here?

If given the choice, I'll risk an attacker trying to use my own gun against me rather than having to videotape a thug breaking into my house for the fourth time so that police can deal with it. To each their own I suppose. :hm:

Palomar · 2004-10-11 14:20:55

I wasn't going to push this again, but since it's on anyway...
However, given the McGyver (spellling?) type skills that will be needed to survive on Mars making guns (or worse) will be very easy to do.
Precisely. Weapons will be a reality, keeping them off-world is simply not possible if humans are going to be living there for any length of time.

*Someone else has probably already mentioned this a long time ago (we've had at least one similar discussion in the past); IIRC, this point has been raised previously: It doesn't seem really wise to me to have guns or similar projectile weapons -- which can perforate walls -- in an enclosed, pressurized, artificial environment.

One shot could put everyone in peril.

Why not use stun guns?

There is no animal life on Mars...and given the unique and fragile artificial environment humans will be living in (until completion of terraformation, IF that even occurs), I just don't see the wisdom in taking projectile weapons along.

Some habits should be broken; violence begets violence.

Sure, eventually a "bad seed" will be born or someone could become severely and dangerously mentally ill...but new solutions to handling volatile and dangerous behaviors could be found.

Guns on Mars would be a lazy way of dealing with problems, at the very least.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-10-11 14:32:24

Just throw em out the airlock. Works like a charm everytime! :laugh:

PeterJ · 2004-10-11 16:27:52

I've got an idea, how about we create an official forum constitution. I will create the discussion/development thread if you all agree?!?

And i agree with the firearms issue. I think this thread is dying down, anyway

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-11 16:41:55

*Someone else has probably already mentioned this a long time ago (we've had at least one similar discussion in the past); IIRC, this point has been raised previously: It doesn't seem really wise to me to have guns or similar projectile weapons -- which can perforate walls -- in an enclosed, pressurized, artificial environment.
One shot could put everyone in peril.

This is an oft raised but overblown concern. If you make a habitat dome out of something strong enough to withstand dust storms, structural stress of pressurization, the occasional micro-meteor impact, you'll have something that resists small-caliber hundgun ammunition quite well. This says it as well as anything:

"A habitation dome made of ripstop Kevlar fabric is unlikely to fail catastrophically. Even if someone shot a large-caliber bullet through a 50-meter diameter dome, it would take over two weeks for the air to leak out, leaving plenty of time for repair."
Robert Zubrin, The Case for Mars, pg. 178.
(paperback), Italics in original.

Explosive decompression isn't a major issue. Further, 9mm hollow point ammunition is well suited for defensive use and has low penetration, further reducing the marginal risk.

In short, if you can perforate that dome with a pistol, you shouldn't be living in it.

There is no animal life on Mars...and given the unique and fragile artificial environment humans will be living in (until completion of terraformation, IF that even occurs), I just don't see the wisdom in taking projectile weapons along.

That's just it, projectile weapons are so easy to make that they can't be entirely kept out. The best thing we could do to minimize their presence is to allow carrying of high-power tasers and tranquilizer pistols, issue one to everyone on the planet, and fine them for not carrying it. Short of that, it's only a matter of time before someone finds a pipe and an air tank and starts getting ideas.

But then if I were in charge, I'd trust the citizens with weapons. Anything less just seems so despotic.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-11 17:13:00

Your house was broken into four times? Doesn't that indicate a problem in and of itself? Maybe, just maybe, weapons aren't the real problem here?
If given the choice, I'll risk an attacker trying to use my own gun against me rather than having to videotape a thug breaking into my house for the fourth time so that police can deal with it. To each their own I suppose. :hm:

At the time I was a member of a medieval recreation society called the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA). One activity was tournaments and simulated war in armour with sword and shield. I have a rattan sword wrapped in duct tape so it looks like metal, it's about twice as long as a policeman's night stick, and consequently twice as heavy but well balanced. It's the same length and weight as a medieval sword, and I'm trained to use it. I now have one of my rattan swords under my bed, and I set up a shop to make a real one. I never did finish the real sword, but I did make a few knives. Police and the courts look poorly on using a lethal weapon against someone who doesn't have one. Someone who isn't trained wouldn't be effective with a blunt weapon like that, so if he took it from me he couldn't use it effectively. Make no mistake, I often left dents in a helmet made of 16 gauge steel, and with martial arts training I'm quick. I haven't trained since 1996, but I did keep up the training at the time.

As for a consistent problem; most neighbours don't help each other. When I tried to set-up neighbourhood watch here the response was usually "Ok, but only if no one knows I'm part of it." That defeats the point, everyone is supposed to talk with their neighbours and protect each other. After the Crime Stoppers video with its $1,000 reward several neighbours called to say they saw the criminal leaving my house. Why didn't they call the police at the time? It may sound cliché but it's quite true: "Together we stand, divided we fall."

Another problem was TV. I know there are many people who don't want to admit that TV affects people's behaviour, but now we know it does. In Canada the cable carries one station of every American network, as well as one station of every Canadian network, typically local stations. Half the stations on the cable are American. In 1987 the cable decided to drop North Dakota stations and replace them with Detroit, because North Dakota had small towns and farmers while Winnipeg is a big city. The result was a clear increase in crime; house break-and-enter and car theft rates tripled. Much of the increase was junior high gangs copying what they saw in Detroit news. No one believed it could happen, but a criminology professor did a study and found a clear correlation. After years of lobbying they replaced most of the Detroit stations with another American city, but it had just as high a crime rate and historically had organized crime before Detroit. After years of further lobbying the cable companies finally replaced the American channels with ones from Minneapolis, Minnesota, and a couple from North Dakota. Minneapolis is almost identical in size to Winnipeg, and the only major city within 800 mile radius. Since then crime has gone down, but not to what it was before 1987.

America was founded by a violent revolution. That start has greatly affected its continuing culture. The result is continuing violence. Canada was founded by peaceful negotiation and mutual respect. That has resulted in a much more peaceful society. During the expansion of Canada's west, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) entered territory when there were only trappers; before homesteaders, ranchers, or miners showed up. That resulted in peace; there wasn't any period of "Wild West" in Canada. How you start civilization on Mars will affect its culture for centuries, so think before you act.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-11 17:34:53

It doesn't seem really wise to me to have guns or similar projectile weapons -- which can perforate walls -- in an enclosed, pressurized, artificial environment.
One shot could put everyone in peril.
Why not use stun guns?

Good point. Actually, I do know how to make an energy beam stun gun. It sounds like science fiction, but it's based on real science. One component is a laser that uses a trick of physics to make the emitter transparent to the same frequency it emits, so it doesn't re-absorb the beam. This makes the laser more efficient; it reduces the energy required and reduces heat in the gun. It's called a phaseonium laser, or phaser for short. Although the phaser is only one part, the energy beam stun pistol is literally a phaser pistol. The real one can't disintegrate anything or kill anyone, but it would be a real stun weapon. It is possible to make one with a kill setting, but that would take a lot more power; specifically a battery several times larger, electronic components capable of handling 20 times as much current, and a circuit to produce a much more complicated modulation. A pistol purpose-built for stun couldn't be rebuilt to kill without replacing practically every component. Actually, that's one advantage; it can't kill.

If I ever build a prototype I hope to sell it to police departments. I would like them to leave their firearms in their cruiser car, and carry a stun beam pistol on their hip.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-11 17:41:33

At the time I was a member of a medieval recreation society called the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA). One activity was tournaments and simulated war in armour with sword and shield.

Yes, I'm familiar with SCA, I've known (peripherally) a few people over the years who were involved. Occasionally I'll even try my hand at making a few pieces of armor.

It's entirely functional, but not pretty.

But I see your point about using a rattan sword against an attacker. In truth, if someone broke into my house I probably wouldn't resort to lethal force if I didn't believe at the time that it was necessary. But I like having the option.

That, and my hallways are a bit too narrow and the ceilings a bit too low to get a sword stroke in. A thrust perhaps, but then I might as well just shoot 'em. ???

In 1987 the cable decided to drop North Dakota stations and replace them with Detroit, because North Dakota had small towns and farmers while Winnipeg is a big city. The result was a clear increase in crime; house break-and-enter and car theft rates tripled. Much of the increase was junior high gangs copying what they saw in Detroit news.

Sounds just like home. Er... yeah.

America was founded by a violent revolution. That start has greatly affected its continuing culture. The result is continuing violence. Canada was founded by peaceful negotiation and mutual respect. That has resulted in a much more peaceful society. During the expansion of Canada's west, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) entered territory when there were only trappers; before homesteaders, ranchers, or miners showed up. That resulted in peace; there wasn't any period of "Wild West" in Canada. How you start civilization on Mars will affect its culture for centuries, so think before you act.

This is likely a bit of an oversimplification. Americans certainly have a more violent history, but we also have a much larger population, we've taken in much larger numbers of people from other, sometimes non-compatible cultures, and we have along with the heritage of violent revolution a strong history of rugged individualism. We don't make good "city folk" in some ways.

But we're also one of the most innovative societies in history, we've brought liberty to more people than any other nation ever. We've led the world in many fields, and if we can overcome our own growing sloth will continue to do so. We should carefully consider the entire cultural and social mix before we start repressing uncomfortable elements.

Palomar · 2004-10-11 18:37:31

The best thing we could do to minimize their presence is to allow carrying of high-power tasers and tranquilizer pistols, issue one to everyone on the planet, and fine them for not carrying it.

*You must be joking. Tell me you are being glib here.

EVERYONE should be armed? On pain of being fined (punished) if they -aren't-?

Why presume everyone deserves to be entrusted with a weapon? This has got "potential for abuse" written all over it.

This seems to assume the absolute worst: That everyone must be armed against everyone else. What kind of a cultural precedent does that set?

I can think of plenty of types of people who should never be encouraged to own weapons: Folks with mental/emotional troubles (particularly paranoid and delusional types), hotheads with explosive tempers, and bullies.

Damn it, Cobra...think about what you're advocating. I can't believe you would make a blanket statement such as this. :hm:

--Cindy

P.S.: I'm beginning to wonder if the RIGHT to bear arms shouldn't be changed to the PRIVILEGE to bear arms. Big difference between those two words. ::shakes head::

RobertDyck · 2004-10-11 19:02:30

Ok, here's my idea. Corporate government under King Me. Yea, I know as soon as I say under "me" everyone will attack, but here me out.

The big question is money. With enough money you can easily build a settlement on Mars with today's technology. So the question is how to make a profit, and enough profit to be big business. So start with a sole proprietorship in the aerospace industry, and grow the business.

I would build a domed city on Mars. This city would be ruled by mayor Me. City government would establish bylaws with jurisdiction within only that one city. Any other town or city is up to whoever builds it. My city would be the port to receive immigrants, and produce equipment for settlers to build their homestead. My business would build, own, and operate the transportation ship that travels from Earth orbit to Mars orbit and back. Everyone on Mars would have a free return trip to Earth, whether they paid for the trip to Mars or were born on Mars. The ticket to Mars would be somewhere in the range of $300,000 to $500,000 per person, plus cargo. Let's just say transportation is a profitable business. A trip to the surface from orbit on the Mars shuttle is included in the interplanetary ticket.

I would also build all the equipment for asteroid mining, both M-type asteroids for precious metals, and C-type asteroids for rocket fuel. I would operate an initial mine with one asteroid of each type, both near Earth. The initial mine would prove the technology works, a selling point to customers, but I wouldn't open any further mines. Competing with your own customers is not good for business. The initial mines wouldn't be sold, but used as technology test sites for further development as well as building experience in mine operation. The Mars settlement ship would be refuelled in Earth orbit and Mars orbit. Mars two moons have the same surface material as C-type asteroids, so asteroid mining equipment could extract fuel from them. A Mars moon mining operation would be both a customer for my mining equipment, and a fuel supplier for my ship. That means my interplanetary shipping line would be the major customer to support the mining company that is a customer of my mining equipment company. Each business supports the others, and my activity ensures the asteroid mining industry survives and expands.

Business within the company-owned Mars city would produce and sell all sorts of goods for settlers. However, if someone started competition for a product I would just let him. If he out-competed me I would just redirect my operation to produce something else. After all, it'll be a long time before Mars can produce all the products available on Earth, so there'll always be something else to sell. If someone produces something I used to produce and frees me to produce something else, then that just increases the number and variety of products settlers can buy. That increases the average wealth of my customers, which provides them with more money with which to buy products, so I sell more. So if someone out-competes me for a particular product, in the long run it just increases my total sales. That would definitely be encouraged. However, interplanetary transportation and asteroid mining equipment sales would be jealously guarded.

There would be only two taxes. The only federal tax would be a 10% payroll tax paid by employers, not employees. That means no payroll deduction of any sort. No income tax, no sales tax, no luxury tax, no anything else. That means if an employer promises you $10 per hour, he has to budget for $1 per hour paid to the government for a total cost of $11 per hour. It would be a federal offence to deduct the payroll tax from your paycheque. One person asked me why a payroll tax instead of income tax; that basically amounts to the same thing. But a company has an accounting department, staffed by professional accountants whose job is to work out numbers like tax owing, so normal employees don't have to worry about it. And a few accountants can deal with tax for many employees. This payroll tax would pay for pension and health care. Instead of an Employment Insurance system, I would institute job training. If you're out of work and want work, an aptitude test would determine what you're good for, even if you don't have any experience or training. Job matching would find an employer, and a job interview with the potential employer would seal the deal. After the employer's commitment to hire the individual, that individual would be sent through job training. During training the system would pay for tuition, books, apartment rent, utilities, and provide a card for cafeteria food. All this would be treated as a student loan, and repaid via direct payroll deduction until it's paid off. That means in the long run, the payroll tax only has to pay for administrative overhead for the job training program.

I mentioned only two taxes, one of which is federal. The other would be a lease fee for anyone who wants to construct a building within the city dome. The lease fee would pay for land, pressure, heat, oxygen, humidity control, and municipal services like sidewalks, a public transit system, and municipal police. Utilities like water and electricity would be billed like any other utility. Apartment rent would not include any portion of this lease fee, and landlords could not add any surcharge; however, it's expected that the flat monthly rent would include operating expenses such as the lease fee.

Anyone who builds their own homestead outside the dome will not have to pay the lease fee. It would be up to them to ensure their habitat is pressure tight, heated, and has a life support system to recycle oxygen and water. Anyone who's self-employed would not have to pay the payroll tax. That means a homesteader who grows food in a greenhouse outside the dome would not have to pay any tax at all. Yes, they would still have complete coverage for heath care, but wouldn't have to pay anything for it. That also applies to a miner or someone with a "cottage industry" producing some product in their homestead. As soon as they have to hire an employee, they will have to pay the payroll tax for what they pay that employee. Does this mean it screws over large business in favour of self-employed individuals? Yes it does. Will big business not like this? No they won't, and too bad for them. A cohesive plan for the economy starts with support of new business; the smaller and newer the business, the more help they need. However, if big business wants to treat their employees as subcontractors, there are rules to prevent that. If you are so-called self-employed but only have one "customer" then you aren't self-employed at all and that "customer" is really an employer who must pay the payroll tax. The IRS already has rules for this; why reinvent the wheel, let's just copy those rules.

If someone wants to sell their product in the company-owned dome city; sure, please do. No sales tax, no business license. If a farmer sells produce to a grocery store, then he/she will have no cost other than production. If a farmer wants to set-up a stall, there will be a land lease fee; presumably the land area will be small so the lease fee would be small. Probably a group of farmers would set-up a co-op to operate a farmers market. If someone builds a town or city somewhere else, then the municipal government of that town will establish the bylaws that operate there.

Palomar · 2004-10-11 19:13:37

It doesn't seem really wise to me to have guns or similar projectile weapons -- which can perforate walls -- in an enclosed, pressurized, artificial environment.
One shot could put everyone in peril.
Why not use stun guns?
Good point. Actually, I do know how to make an energy beam stun gun. It sounds like science fiction, but it's based on real science.
If I ever build a prototype I hope to sell it to police departments. I would like them to leave their firearms in their cruiser car, and carry a stun beam pistol on their hip.

*Ah ha! Further proof you ARE Mr. Spock. What are you doing here in the early 21st century? Must seem like the Stone Age to you. :;):

Robert, that sounds very interesting. You are so smart; I'm beyond sure you could invent/achieve anything you put your awesome and powerful mind to doing.

Too bad some of your brain cells can't be transplanted into my head; I'd love to be able to "get" higher math and physics. :laugh:

Do try to build that prototype. Why not? If it could get actual guns off the streets, is a "lesser" weapon but effective enough to unarm the bad guys, go for it!

--Cindy

P.S.: Tell Capt. Kirk I said hi...and that he's the most gorgeous man that ever lived!

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-12 05:20:56

Interesting plan you outline Robert, seems workable from that treatment.

*You must be joking. Tell me you are being glib here.
EVERYONE should be armed? On pain of being fined (punished) if they -aren't-?

A bit of glibness, yes. What I'm getting at is that if you have a colony, eventually you'll have a criminal element. Criminals like weapons, they make committing crimes so much easier, especially when the government prohibits law-abiding citizens from having the same means. Criminals are also a bit lazy, as evidenced by their resorting to crime in the first place. If you give them a weapon, they'll use it. Pass out non-lethal weapons to every man, woman and child and that's what the criminals will use except when their entire purpose is to kill someone, in which case a good hit from the taser (or Robert's "phaser") will take 'em down if you're fast enough.

However, if we have no weapons of any kind, those criminals will build them. Many will have knives, but a few enterprising individuals will want something with longer reach. The easiest answer is to build a gun, either using explosives or compressed gas as a propellent.

So in an odd way, giving criminals non-lethal weapons makes us all safer. They have a usable weapon, average citizens have an effective means of defense, and no one gets killed.

.S.: I'm beginning to wonder if the RIGHT to bear arms shouldn't be changed to the PRIVILEGE to bear arms. Big difference between those two words. ::shakes head::

It's the right on which all others rest. Remove it, and all rights are priveleges, granted at the pleasure and discretion of those with the guns.

Palomar · 2004-10-12 08:49:22

Criminals are also a bit lazy, as evidenced by their resorting to crime in the first place. If you give them a weapon, they'll use it. Pass out non-lethal weapons to every man, woman and child and that's what the criminals will use except when their entire purpose is to kill someone, in which case a good hit from the taser (or Robert's "phaser") will take 'em down if you're fast enough.
However, if we have no weapons of any kind, those criminals will build them. Many will have knives, but a few enterprising individuals will want something with longer reach. The easiest answer is to build a gun, either using explosives or compressed gas as a propellent.
So in an odd way, giving criminals non-lethal weapons makes us all safer. They have a usable weapon, average citizens have an effective means of defense, and no one gets killed.

*Sorry, I just disagree. I can foresee a group of teenagers ganging up on the 1 "outsider" they dislike and overpowering him/her...5 against 1. Sure, it can happen today -- with sticks and rocks -- but there's a difference between someone having acquired a weapon somehow versus they used their weapons for purposes of aggression after being handed them, and with the provisio of "carry it or be punished." Everyone who evidences sanity and responsibility should be entitled to protect themselves. But not everyone is sane or responsible.

Yeah, the crooks will come up with ways to make weapons regardless. And though they might be lazy, they are bold if not brazen (goes with the territory), and some people (the conscientious objector type) might refuse to USE their weapon based on the violence begets violence principle. I could use such a weapon if the situation merited (being mugged, for instance)...but some folks would freeze or get nervous and drop the weapon, etc. Then the crook would have it. Back to square one.

P.S.: I'm beginning to wonder if the RIGHT to bear arms shouldn't be changed to the PRIVILEGE to bear arms. Big difference between those two words. ::shakes head::
It's the right on which all others rest. Remove it, and all rights are priveleges, granted at the pleasure and discretion of those with the guns.

*Isn't -property- (land ownership) the rights on which all other rights and privileges rest?

In your scenario there'll be just that much more abuse. There's some things you just don't encourage, IMO; your suggestion is one of them.

It doesn't seem to me that people become MORE responsible with hand-outs...just more careless, and abusive.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-10-09 21:03:48

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#2 2004-10-10 01:19:36

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#3 2004-10-10 02:06:38

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#4 2004-10-10 07:23:44

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#5 2004-10-10 08:58:08

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#6 2004-10-10 10:42:03

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#7 2004-10-10 18:16:52

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#8 2004-10-10 19:11:34

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#9 2004-10-11 11:25:30

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#10 2004-10-11 13:00:16

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#11 2004-10-11 13:05:14

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#12 2004-10-11 13:07:15

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#13 2004-10-11 13:26:23

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#14 2004-10-11 14:20:55

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#15 2004-10-11 14:32:24

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#16 2004-10-11 16:27:52

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#17 2004-10-11 16:41:55

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#18 2004-10-11 17:13:00

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#19 2004-10-11 17:34:53

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#20 2004-10-11 17:41:33

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#21 2004-10-11 18:37:31

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#22 2004-10-11 19:02:30

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#23 2004-10-11 19:13:37

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#24 2004-10-12 05:20:56

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

#25 2004-10-12 08:49:22

Re: My idea on mars governance - Im feeling optimistic

Board footer