FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

AltToWar · 2002-11-17 16:14:20

In KSR's books, the government did not allow for states or countries to form.

he current trend in the political world is moving away from nationalism, and more towards multi-national co-operation.

Should we do the same?

Is natonalism a good thing?

I dont understand the constitutional congress myself either.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-17 16:25:13

How do we represent a diverse array of ideas without having varying nations, and so on? I don't think nationalism, per say, is good, but I don't see how we'd be organized without individual states or colonies. All colonies would have to follow societal guidelines set by the world government. Everyone has to be a democracy, everyone has to do such and such. I don't see that as the purpose of a world government.

I really ought to read his books again. Because I don't remember states or nations being denyed existance.

AltToWar · 2002-11-17 16:51:14

How do we represent a diverse array of ideas without having varying nations, and so on? I don't think nationalism, per say, is good, but I don't see how we'd be organized without individual states or colonies. All colonies would have to follow societal guidelines set by the world government. Everyone has to be a democracy, everyone has to do such and such. I don't see that as the purpose of a world government.
I really ought to read his books again. Because I don't remember states or nations being denyed existance.

KSR had 'City-States'
their constitution forbid city-states from forming any sort of permanant alliance.

If we provide for nations, we dont have a global state, we have smthing similar to the United Nations.

Nationalism has been the warcry for the most brutal wars over the last few centuries. A national border makes it very easy to call those on the other side 'Them' not 'Us'.

I believe Cities are very capable of maintaining a silge culture and identity. Just compare the culture of NY to LA.

Perhaps we should step back and determine our ultimate goals.

I think our goals should be to take our present political climate and extend it to the next step.

I think we need to have as much diversity in culture and Ideals as possible.

I think we need to ensure that one culture does not threaten, overpower or Intimidate another.

I'll be back... Kid needs the computer

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-18 16:33:23

Hey, I found my copy of The Martians, which has KSR's Martian Constitution in it; I was in the middle of a reply last night, but I had a slight emergency that had to be taken care of.

First off, I have to just say, damn, KSR is brilliant. I may disagree with half of his constitution, but his writing is so great, how could I have forgotten? I've decided to read his trilogy again, after having read his constitution and the following chapter, ?Some Worknotes and Commentary on the Constitution.? What a great writer. (Check out 3.3.2 in the commentary... ?human nature? is mentioned- I'd forgotten about that, too.)

Anyhow, I'm rambling, so let me just quickly type out the bit that I want to reference:

From Article 4 part 2, Towns and settlements are free to establish their own local laws, politicsl systems, and cultural practices, except where these laws, systems, or practices would abrogate the individual rights guaranteed by this global constitution.

So it does seem that you are correct in that his constitution doesn't allow for true nations, as everyone is to follow the guidlines set forth by the constitution. This seems more than fair, and I would have agreed with this without question. (I like the commentary in the following chapter, about that article; Again, the great paradox; intolerance of intolerance. But how else can justice be achieved?)

There are a few things I don't like about KSR's Martian Constitution. First being that the environmental court has way too much power. Statistically speaking, less than a quarter of the martian population could dictate whether or not terraformation would or would not happen, if I'm seeing it right. Another thing I dislike, is that the Executive Council has complete control over the global police and security force, which I personally find disturbing.

With regard to the senators, though. Article 1, Secton 1, part 3. The senate will be composed of one senator from each town or settlement on Mars with a population larger than five hundred people (changed by Ammendment 22 to three thousand people), elected every two m-years, using an Australian ballot system. The senate will remain permanently in session, aside from breaks of no more than a month out of every twelve.

This might be where I got the original idea of senators being elected for each town or settlement, and I think that it works well, if we define the population size of a town or settlement (like they seem to have done here, with their five hundred / three thousand limit).

AltToWar · 2002-11-19 13:36:01

Military and Global police must fall under the command of one body. If not, there is too much temptation for inter-faction conflict and arms races.

The fudal system was mostly made up of a distributed military system, where lords would provide kings with knights in exchange for land, title, and the right to tax. This sytem wis riddled with intrakingdom warfare and arms races.

If the goal here is to try to prevent violence, I think the only way to prevent battles between cities is to have one athority be the ultimate athority.

In addition, in a time of crisis, it is important to have stong leadership that can make quick decisions. Several warlords with different aims will not provide good results.

AltToWar · 2002-11-19 13:49:52

Without a doubt, our constitution will be fundimentaly a democracy.

I'll list some problems with modern democracies, and perhaps we can avoid them.

1: "Democracy fails when the people ralize they can vote themselves more money" - unknown

In America, it could be argued that special interest groups hold more sway over politicians then voters. Indeed in modern times it takes money to win elections. Money is needed to make the people aware of the cadidate. All too often the money spent on a campaign is paid back by favors towards those that fund the candidate.

2: Democracy VS Republic

Though a representative is responsable for voting on many broad issues, often times cadidates are elected on one particular issue. For instance, many people will vote for whatever candidate is Pro-Life, or sometimes voters make their votes based on whatever issue is currently hot at the election time, Like Homeland Security for instance.

In the Pro-Choice case, A minority of the population might sway the election because they are voting one issue, while the rest of the population is making their decision on several issues.

In the case of Homeland Security, poloticians are encouraged to hype issues that favor themselves and deminish those issues they are weak on at election time.

More later

el scorcho · 2002-11-19 16:29:00

This is precisely why i favor global direct electronic democracy. But since it probably is impractical, there should be severe restrictions placed on representatives.

Democrats, Republicans, whoever...they are all politicians and they can all be swayed by money and special interest groups. A large problem in the current American government is the corporate hold on Congress: for example, the entertainment industry (RIAA, MPAA, and others) have gradually demanded that the copyright terms be increased. This would allow said corporations to own recordings and hold exclusive rights, allowing them to make money off of dated works, thus stifling the amount of creativity put into new works. When our country was formed, copyrights could be held for no more than 28 years; now that number has increased to the owner's life plus 50 years.

Mickey Mouse should have been public domain years ago, and all those great Star Wars flicks would have been public domain in 2005. Thanks to the extensions, it probably wont happen until about 75 years down the road.

Therefore, if we must have representative democracy, i say we include in the Martian constitution a provision that forbids any group or corporation from contributing money and allows only for individuals to do so. Even then, there could be a limit to how much money could be donated.

Also, it should be required that all media outlets give unbiased coverage to all elections and that they give equal coverage to ALL candidates. The media often acts as if there are only Democrats and Republicans, only giving passing mention to Libertarians, Greens, Reforms, or anyone else.

Also, the representatives from each city/state should be required to have at least one town meeting with their constituents before every Martian Congressional session. That way, the people can make their opinions known and set the agenda for what they would like to see happen.

And for major decisions, such as declaring war, there should be a global vote of the whole population.

AltToWar · 2002-11-19 17:24:42

What if we had a 2 house congress, and one of those houses was a true democracy? Basicly every law would have to go through a popular vote. Popular votes could be held every monday, for instance. Some practical encryption method could be used to protect vs fraud.

Basicly you would have a Senate of elected officials. They would draft laws and vote to approve them. Then the population would have a chance to ack or nak it.

As long as money will win an election, people will find loopholes in any law to allow organizations to fund polititians. When these loopholes are found, you will have a hard time getting polititians to mend these loopholes. See america currentrly in issues dealing with campaign finance.

Another solution would be representation by jury duty. Normal citizens are randomly selected to serve as senetor.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-19 17:56:14

Actually, you're right in hindsight. A central authority can also be blamed if anything goes wrong, whereas you would have to hunt down and get all the people responsible within a decentralized authority. So the people who have that power, would most likely use it justly.

One thing I would like to point out, is that the Wiki Martian Constitution in Progress has an interesting thing that is left out of KSR's Martian Constituion. ?The right to individual self determination.? What do you think about that? Wouldn't this essentially be a pro-choice, pro-tattoos, pro-justaboutanything sort of thing?

(BTW, you guys ought to go to your Prefrences Page, and set up a name to use, password protect it when you want to use it, and use the login page to reidentify yourself.)

And actually, though I have advocated it before, a worldwide electronic sort of thing, I think I would prefer paper, or a form of paper which is highly traceable. Pieces of plastic with random bar codes printed on them, and so on. Paper trails are much easier to trace, and though I would hope that I could trust this global government, and those within it, I would still want a method which is tracable. I'm not saying that you couldn't devise a computer system which is tracable, and completely open, and all of that, but it would be much easier to use a paper-ballot-like system, and it doesn't require a whole lot of thought. I think that electronic voting systems would start at the local level, and only when they have been tried and true, would the be adopted by the global government.

I talked about a regular popular vote before, but those who I discussed it with, suggested that it would be too arduous. My answer was that life would be easier and people would have more time. Probably not the greatest answer, but it's fairly justifable. I think, though, that ultimately, at the local level, things will be defined very differently for each settlement, and we don't really have to get in to that.

That's the thing about your direct democracy congress. Most people wouldn't be affected by decisions a direct democracy congress would make, but they would have the power to decide? I personally wouldn't want someone on the other side of Mars voting on an issue that would affect me, unless everyone on Mars voted on the issue. And we can't honestly force people to vote every monday, no matter how easy life will be for them. Only on the local level can this happen without it being too arduous.

el scorcho · 2002-11-19 19:47:37

What if we had a 2 house congress, and one of those houses was a true democracy? Basicly every law would have to go through a popular vote. Popular votes could be held every monday, for instance. Some practical encryption method could be used to protect vs fraud.
Basicly you would have a Senate of elected officials. They would draft laws and vote to approve them. Then the population would have a chance to ack or nak it.
Another solution would be representation by jury duty. Normal citizens are randomly selected to serve as senetor.

I hadn't thought about that 'jury duty' thing...sounds like a great idea! That would cut out one of the biggest problems with politicians: they make politics their CAREER. If it were ordinary citizens who care about nothing but the issues, perhaps government would not be so corrupt.

As for global direct electronic democracy, those would only come about whenever there was a presidential election. By the way, I like the idea of having some sort of credit card-type thing to carry around for the purpose of voting in elections. I worry that paper ballots would lead to a Florida-esque fiasco on Mars (no offense to any Floridians). Since the Martian government will probably be a highly decentralized confederation of states, the government will have very little authority and will therefore have no need of very many elections anyway.

Here's a suggestion for government structure:
Every 6 years, Martians will choose a president, who will have very little real power. The president's job will be basically to represent Martians to all outside political and societal bodies. The president would have the power to write bills, call for global referendums on important issues, and probably some other things I haven't thought of yet.
A bicameral legislature consisting of a 'jury duty' senate and a 'house' that would consist of the whole population. Any decisions made by the president would have to be ratified by a simple 51% majority in the senate to be considered for approval by the masses. If two-thirds of the 'house' approves it, it becomes law.

Furthermore, I believe that for the first century or so, the Martian global military's main objective should be to build a powerful space defense infrastructure to protect against asteroids and the like.

Byron · 2002-11-20 06:39:01

Josh:

And actually, though I have advocated it before, a worldwide electronic sort of thing, I think I would prefer paper, or a form of paper which is highly traceable. Pieces of plastic with random bar codes printed on them, and so on. Paper trails are much easier to trace, and though I would hope that I could trust this global government, and those within it, I would still want a method which is tracable. I'm not saying that you couldn't devise a computer system which is tracable, and completely open, and all of that, but it would be much easier to use a paper-ballot-like system, and it doesn't require a whole lot of thought. I think that electronic voting systems would start at the local level, and only when they have been tried and true, would the be adopted by the global government.

Uhmm....you should see how we vote here in South Florida these days :0 Due to the great Election Fiasco of 2000...we were mandated to come up with new, "foolproof" balloting systems...and what they came up with is a completely computerized, digital voting system...no paper ballots whatsoever. That's right...welcome to the 21st century...

I must admit, the new touch screens are a joy to use...just touch your selections, and when you're done, just hit the "vote" button. Your ballot gets stored in something called a "pleb," and that gets dumped into the main system at the end of the day. As for physical traces of the ballots....I've been wondering about that too.... ??? But paper ballots, even plastic tabs...no, that's already long gone, right here, in the year 2002...

B

clark · 2002-11-20 11:57:31

Define what the federal government should do, why is it neccessary- allow individual areas to develop their own way under the guidelines of a global bill of rights.

I would prefer a federal government with the sole role of protecting me from the vagaries of my local government- and my local government protecting from the overreaching heavy hand of the federal government.

A system than plays the two against one another, where there is a balance, allows for the greatest amount of freedom and security in my opinion.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-20 15:31:08

Uh oh, clark is here. The topic is ruined!

All playing aside... Byron, may main problem with these electronic ballot systems, is that they're proprietary. No one can see how they work, and thus, anyone (who has access, and does know how they work) can go in and change the counting algorithms the way they see fit. It wouldn't take two seconds at an eeprom burner for me to do that, if I knew how it functioned. Security through obscurity is the worst possible kind. Interestingly enough, in the US, Republican donors own most of the electronic ballot machines, but this goes back to the ballot speed scanner days, so we can't exactly claim there is widespread fraud going on; just something to think about. I think you're fairly right about voting going electronic, which is a shame. I will continue to vote absentee until I can feel like I can trust the system the way I can a paper trail.

And clark, though I agree very much with the sentiment that a struggling government is a safe government, I don't think we're really defining the local level anyway. All we're doing is saying you can't bust each others head open (like I've said before, a good constitution doesn't go much further than defining safety / civil rights, etc).

I'm just wondering what we're going to do to settlements who wish to circumvent the world government. A morman settlement, who doesn't allow people to make their own choices, or denys them the ablity to vote in global elections.

Speaking of global elections, AltToWar's idea that we could have a congress which works in a direct democracy sort of way with the people actually sounds nice, as long as those affected by the vote are allowed to vote. And not everyone on the planet. It would be better to have the populace represented higher up in the government.

clark · 2002-11-20 15:46:35

Everytime you define the role or ability of a federal government, you are in essence limiting the choices of the local government.

If we have a federal rule that requires a seperation of church and state, we have reduced the number of choices available to those who might wish to perpetuate a combining of church and state at the local level.

The above is just an example of what I am thinking, not of how I feel about this particualr issue.

The idea here should be ambiguity whenever possible, and clarity where neccessary.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-25 06:45:00

Ahh, I'm just looking at the Wiki (I'm going to be doing some updating soon)... and clark... ?the right to engage in ownership?? What's wrong with ?the right to retain ownership of a majority of ones own labor??

The former says that one may ?engage in ownership,? yet doesn't give a provision for one to have a piece of the pie, shall we say. ?Engaging in ownership? really doesn't mean anything; it's a non-provision, since people will ?engage in ownership? regardless of their political orientation (possession is in fact that very thing).

clark · 2002-11-25 10:14:35

Engage in ownership establishes that your right to "own" cannot be denied.

Labor is too specfic in my opinion.

If you have a right to own a majority of your own labor, what is considered a majority? 51%? What about labor that is collabrotive? Instead of dictating too specfically, let us be more encompassing and then allow individual laws to be drafted for each type of situation that requires a specfic ownersip to be delinated.

If you can own your labor, but not property, what do you really have?

We have a right to free speech- that is a general right that can be broken down into indivdual sitautions whereby that general right is limited. I am trying to do the same thing with ownership.

Can one "sell" or rent their labor? Could one sell or rent their right to free speech? Do you see the obvious error in logic when we ask the same question to two different rights?

We can't sell our right to free speech, nor can we sell any of our rights- or even rent them. We cannot rent our right to ownership, but we certainly could rent a majority of our labor.

If you have an inherent right to ownership, no one can be denied owning anything if they are capable- that's all. The idea being to allow any form group to have the maximum lattitude for developing their "own waY' without allowing them to infringe on any individual to far.

soph · 2002-11-25 17:31:17

decentralized government is too weak.

a global government would be necessary for many things. for example, in early American western expansion, America had the Homestead Act, which allowed each family a plot of land and the right to build on it. this would be a valid type of arrangement on another planet.

also, governments should be able to mobilize the economy in a particular direction-not arbitrarily, but for the good of the people. if there is no economic regulation, nothing of large scale, and i mean continental here, would be accomplished in a reasonable time or fashion. a strong government, not absolute, but strong, is vital to the defense and unity of a people.

a confederation would be dangerous. the possibility for many different laws, currencies, etc. is great, which would be a detriment to society. bureaucracy is good, but only to a point. bloated bureaucracy is a bad thing, as history has shown, but more can be accomplished when there is a centralized, democratic based government.

clark · 2002-11-25 17:48:47

A global government doe shave advantages, but the environmental reality on Mars negates the neccessity of an all encompasing federal government that dictates msot of the facts of everyday life- indeed, it would prove counter to the best interests of society in general becuase any large scale federal government, by definition, would be removed far from the lives of everyday people- this would inf act lead to far more social discord than what would be realized without such instutitions.

It would be a far wiser course of action to instutite local government on a city scale, since each habitat is in essence an enclosed world residing upon a larger world. the choices made by one city-group are by and large contained within that city-group. Those areas where the actions of a city may affect another city should of course fall under some global governments jurisdiction in order to provide a neccessary means for resolving disputes peacefully; and the global government should ensure that each individuals human rights are not violated by the city-groups laws.

Regulation of the economy should occur, as to prevent the vagaries of capitalism excess and market manipulation. but such regulation can occur at both levels, and should only look to prevent wide scale manipulation or gouging of the people of mars.

as for the need of defense, this is only a neccessity on a global scale if there are more than one global government on mars- otherwise, no individual habitat needs military since the whole concept of "war" in a martian environment is flawed, and I for one would hope that if we go through the trouble of building multi-trillion dolar man-rated habitats, the thought of war would just seem, well, stupid.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-25 20:21:20

The right to ?own? is as a natural right as the right to possess ones self. One cannot deny you this right, it can only be dilluted by certain systems (extreme right or left systems). When you say that one may ?engage in ownership,? all you're saying is that people can do what they'll always be doing. ?Engaging in ownership? fits with practically any political system I can think of.

The problem is, it doesn't prevent ownership from being dilluted, and it doesn't prevent wealth from building up to a small part of society. Indeed, this vague decree, at least in my mind, only opens up opportunity for more plutocratic forms of organization.

All it does, in fact, is reenforce a natural right (if not deny some natural rights, because there's nothing in the constitution that says you can't own people), and indeed, makes it harder for people to gain from their own effort.

If you have a right to own a majority of your own labor, what is considered a majority? 51%? What about labor that is collabrotive?

Well, this comes from KSR's constitution. And KSR has a specific branch of the government which takes care of this. Need it be overly involved? I don't think so, personally.

Instead of dictating too specfically, let us be more encompassing and then allow individual laws to be drafted for each type of situation that requires a specfic ownersip to be delinated.

Well, I don't think we're dictating too specifically, to be quite honest. Basically, we set it up for people to have someone to ?complain? to. Individual laws in each town would be the crux of the decision, and those laws will merely have to be based on laws drafted by the commission, perhaps even defined by world election.

There's nothing in this constitution saying that people can't abrogate their own right. The right to self determination means that you could conceivably live in a highly capitalist settlement, and get a very small precent of the economic benefits of your own labor. The settlement would obviously have to obey the law, and you would be insane to work for a place which wouldn't allow you to gain from your own effort, but you could still do it. The question is, though, would anyone with any ammount of sanity subject themselves that? I doubt most people would.

You know, I can see some parallels here with this and copyright, but I'll expound on that in a second. Working in this settlement, where people happily work for very little gain would be much like throwing away your copyright.

If you can own your labor, but not property, what do you really have?

Well, I don't see where we're abolishing property. That's going to exist regardless. The only thing we're doing is saying that people ought to be able to actually benefit from their own labor. What we have, simply put, is a system which promotes equality.

This doesn't entirely prevent people from being rich, or profiting, of course. I could own a company which creates hot sauce (we'll call it Al's Hot Sauce), we need people to grow hot sauce, I sell it, and give them half. If I have ten employees, and I sell 1000 bottles of hot sauce at 2 martian dollars a bottle, I have to give fifty dollars to each employee, but I retain 500. In the real world, of course, people get a small wage. I sell 1000 bottles in a day, at 5 martian dollars an hour for ten employees in an 8 hour day, they get fourty dollars each, and I retain 600. Of course, this is a very simple example, but I could make a better one for you, if you wanted.

The US Constitution gives people the right to own their work. Consider: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

How is securing exclusive right to a majority of your labor any different?

Cobra Commander · 2002-11-25 20:27:37

A global government doe shave advantages, but the environmental reality on Mars negates the neccessity of an all encompasing federal government that dictates msot of the facts of everyday life- indeed, it would prove counter to the best interests of society in general becuase any large scale federal government, by definition, would be removed far from the lives of everyday people- this would inf act lead to far more social discord than what would be realized without such instutitions.

I actually find myself in agreement with Clark on this one. Will wonders never cease?

as for the need of defense, this is only a neccessity on a global scale if there are more than one global government on mars- otherwise, no individual habitat needs military since the whole concept of "war" in a martian environment is flawed, and I for one would hope that if we go through the trouble of building multi-trillion dolar man-rated habitats, the thought of war would just seem, well, stupid.

War in an enviroment requiring pressurized habitats for survival is damn irrational. Unfortunately, humanity has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity for shortsightedness and stupidity. I am confident in predicting that the first Martian military conflict will occur within thirty years of the establishment of permanent settlements. Hope I'm wrong, time will tell. Of course we can't have Mars Wars if we don't get off our butts and go!

el scorcho · 2002-11-26 15:25:45

a confederation would be dangerous. the possibility for many different laws, currencies, etc. is great, which would be a detriment to society. bureaucracy is good, but only to a point. bloated bureaucracy is a bad thing, as history has shown, but more can be accomplished when there is a centralized, democratic based government.

I suggested having a global currency and constitution for Mars. Everyone would use the same money and all laws would be based on the global constitution. The way I see it, in that type of system most of the laws would be the same anyway. Also, for the first few decades, settlements will be so far apart and isolated that a confederation would be the only practical configuration. The Greeks operated that way (minus the central currency and constitution) due to the mountainous terrain of their homeland.

I just think that Colony A should be able to govern itself without some senator from colony B, C, D, E, or whatever making a law Colony A doesnt agree with. Look at it this way: why should a senator from South Dakota have any authority to make laws that will affect people in Virginia?

soph · 2002-11-26 16:39:59

that system would eventually cause societal tension between colonies and even war. you should comply with these laws, because south dakotas tax dollars funnel into programs that help virginia. if the states were separate, they would be weak, but with a government whose laws are uniform and apply to the entire union, the states are collectively stronger.

the concept of "states rights" is backwards, imho. each state sacrifices for their own betterment. think of any team...what would the results be if members decided not to follow rules because they didnt like them?

Scott G. Beach · 2002-11-27 01:46:48

Political philosopher John Rawls died on Sunday. A summary of his philosophy can be heard on National Public Radio (click here)

el scorcho · 2002-11-27 20:58:07

that system would eventually cause societal tension between colonies and even war. you should comply with these laws, because south dakotas tax dollars funnel into programs that help virginia. if the states were separate, they would be weak, but with a government whose laws are uniform and apply to the entire union, the states are collectively stronger.
the concept of "states rights" is backwards, imho. each state sacrifices for their own betterment. think of any team...what would the results be if members decided not to follow rules because they didnt like them?

Hmmm....you've got a point there, but consider this...

What of the people of South Dakota? Why should they be forced to pay taxes that will profit Virginia or any other state besides South Dakota? If a state (or person for that matter) wants to better itself, it should provide the means to do so. Don't get me wrong, a union is all well and good, but a central beuracracy inevitably erodes the rights of individual states.

Also, what if, for example, one person is conservative and lives in a city-state that is very liberal leaning? That person could simply move to a neighboring city-state that is more conservative. The same could be said for conflicting religious beliefs. This would not be a possibility under a centralized world government.

It is for these reasons that I don't understand how a confederation would lead to any more increased societal tensions and wars than we already have, considering that each state would be left to its own devices, rather than having a federal law to appease one part of society at the expense of all the rest.

I'm not saying there can't be any federal government; look at some of the previous posts where some of the others and I advocate a central military and currency. I see no problem with having a special clause in the constitution where many of the powers revert to a central world government in times of global crisis, such as war or impending doom from an asteroid. At the end of the crisis, these powers would be reverted back to the states.

clark · 2002-11-29 10:33:01

Josh,

My labor, and the fruits from that labor, are mine to do with as I see fit. If I wish to provide my services sans any compensation, then I am at liberty to do so. If I wish to only offer my service at a steep price, that is my perogative. Let me say I agree with you in principle, but not in practice. I own my own labor, and this is realized by exsistence as a self-aware being. A horse dosen't have a right to the fruits of their labor, do they? A dog? It is my opinion that there is no need to define that we have a right to a majority of our labor becuase we simply have a right to the benefits of ALL our labor. Now, how we choose to realize the benefits of all our labor is up to us as individuals. Some choose more education becuase it tends to lead to a higher ratio of work versus pay- some choose certain fields based on the ratio of work to pay. In each instance, people are deciding for themselves how they will realize the benefits of their labor.

The idea to enshire "the right to ownership" is to prevent the abuse of state and others. By stating we have a right to own, it neccessarily means we have a right to compensation for whatever we own- the State may not take from us without compensation. It means the PRODUCTS of our labor- songs, art, rovers- we can own these things. If all we have is ownership of labor, but not of actual tangible "things", our freedom is curtailed sicne we have less of an ability to establish our own independance and less of an opportunity for complete self-determination.

Cobra, glad to hear you agree with me- I think. One down, 6 billion to go.... As a side note, I don't think we would ever see a Martian conflict for a very very long time (you sited 30 years)- the simple fact of the matter is that Mars will remain empty for a very long time, and unless there is some resource that is lacking, there shouldn't be much reason for war.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-11-17 16:14:20

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#27 2002-11-17 16:25:13

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#28 2002-11-17 16:51:14

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#29 2002-11-18 16:33:23

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#30 2002-11-19 13:36:01

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#31 2002-11-19 13:49:52

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#32 2002-11-19 16:29:00

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#33 2002-11-19 17:24:42

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#34 2002-11-19 17:56:14

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#35 2002-11-19 19:47:37

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#36 2002-11-20 06:39:01

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#37 2002-11-20 11:57:31

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#38 2002-11-20 15:31:08

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#39 2002-11-20 15:46:35

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#40 2002-11-25 06:45:00

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#41 2002-11-25 10:14:35

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#42 2002-11-25 17:31:17

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#43 2002-11-25 17:48:47

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#44 2002-11-25 20:21:20

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#45 2002-11-25 20:27:37

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#46 2002-11-26 15:25:45

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#47 2002-11-26 16:39:59

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#48 2002-11-27 01:46:48

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#49 2002-11-27 20:58:07

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

#50 2002-11-29 10:33:01

Re: FUN! Martian Contitution Collaboration - This looks like a lot of fun.

Board footer