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

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-29 13:44:13

clark, I respectfully disagree with what you've said with regards to labor.

If I wish to provide my services sans any compensation, then I am at liberty to do so.

Sure, I am at liberty to practice no-swearing rituals bestowed upon me by my church. I disavow my freedom of speech by being in a religion in which I cannot use it.

This is why I say you may yet provide services sans compensation. One can abrogate their own rights. The question is, would you? Sure, for speech, maybe, but how about labor?

If I wish to only offer my service at a steep price, that is my perogative.

Indeed. But remember, you can't really offer it at a steep price without someone depending on you. Otherwise it's bad business practice.

Tee hee.

I own my own labor, and this is realized by exsistence as a self-aware being.

Actually, I disagree. This is realized by law. Lower animals can indeed have property rights, look at territorial animals.

Law can dictate that you own nothing; as would be the case if you were a slave (although I will be arguing soon that you are, so... take that as you will... heh).

A horse dosen't have a right to the fruits of their labor, do they?

Depends on the kindness of a horses master. A wild horse would obviously have more control over the benefits from its labor (one must note that horses don't exactly work in the wild, but that's beside the point).

A dog?

Heh, Eric Fromm points out in his book, To have or To Be that we treat pets better than we do our fellow human beings. We feed them, shelter them, and keep them clean, etc, without very much in return except their own existance. Yes, I know, I'm digressing, I just think it's a cute point.

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.

What law says that I have a right to the benefits of all of my labor? I would argue that no law exists as such. And I would argue that most of my labor is exhausted on someone else, higher up on the wealth chain. I would even continue to argue that a large portion of humans can never hope to be very high on that wealth chain. We have absolutely no right to any benefit of our labor. The fact that plutocratic nations take valuable resources from nations (without returning anything of equal value) to splurge on themselves, pretty much exemplifies this evident truth.

There is absolutely a need to define that we have a right to a majority of our labor, simply because no one actually does get a majority of their labor! This is the resturant paradox all over again.

Now, how we choose to realize the benefits of all our labor is up to us as individuals.

Well, I would agree to that. Chosing our parents is a difficult job, though, I would argue. People hardly ever get a choice as to where their labor is exhausted. Don't think the USA is a true reflection of the whole of humanity. If anything, it's a reflection of a humanity improperly balanced. If we want a consitution that's for everyone, by god, it ought to be for everyone.

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.

Um, how about the people in ravaged nations where most resources are completely drained, where most people have to take on one job (see: growing coco or coffee or... drugs exclusively- for a whole nation) to survive? People don't have choices in the way you envision.

I think you've let the US (or first world nations) get to your head. We can't be thinking this way, with regards to another world. Mars' consitution will probably not look the way we've written it down, but I'm highly confidant it will promote equality for everyone.

The idea to enshire "the right to ownership" is to prevent the abuse of state and others.

Actually, no. I totally disagree. The right to own only means more plutocratic forms of organization. Corporations will prodominate, and regulation would be highly minimalized. Since you have the right to own, you have the right to appropriate endlessly. This means one or two people could own everything on Mars. They could change the laws how they saw fit because there would be an overhanging threat! ?Don't do what I say, you go out the airlock!? The sad part, is that people would easily believe propaganda spread by these corporations, due to the fact that the ?constitution says so.?

This is another reason why the constitution ought not be vague. Though I agree that confusion within government is necessary to slow its efficiency, I highly disagree with vagueness in law! A Constitution is the Ultimate of Ultimate laws. We don't want it written as vaguely as laws like the DMCA, which give certain corporations the ablity to deem the print screen key unlawful!

By stating we have a right to own, it neccessarily means we have a right to compensation for whatever we own

Sure. I have the right to own all the airlocks on the planet. And I have the right to tell people how to use those airlocks. They have to use my own security codes, and they have to pay me to open air locks, and close them. So people are sometimes caught outside the air locks because, well, they ran out of credits.

Okay, extreme example, but you know exactly where I'm getting at. A ?right to compensation for whatever we own? means that plutocrats have the right to tell you what to do. It doesn't create a provision for those who are at the bottom of the economic scale.

Indeed, it only saturates the top of the economic scale since it provides only for proprietors. Consider; a settlement is living all by itself, doing its own little thing, completely independent of other colonies (at least for things of necessity). Another, larger, more powerful settlement doesn't like this, and they own all the land around the smaller settlement. They are begruged that the littler settlement is getting away with so much land, and not profiting much from it at all. So what do they do? Well, they construct a large thin, but highly blackened wall, of course! Right next to the settlement; blocking out all useable sunlight. Yes, it's an extreme example, but hasn't it been done before, by corporations who buy out the little guy? Sure has. This behavior would only be enforced by a ?right to own? policy.

However, the right to the majority of ones own labor could be interpreted as allowing everyone fair access (51%) to all resources. Such a wall would be unconstitutional. Or at least, such a wall would have to let 51% of the sunlight through!

The corporations lose, ahaha.

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.

Oh rubish, clark.

We'll be able to establish property. The key here, is that we'll be able to establish how that property is used fairly. Eric Fromm points out that a having mode of existance is much more dependent than a being mode of existance. This law, or rule, would not prevent us from creating property. Indeed, we could (and ought to) add a provision that prevents the state from taking our property unless major circumstances and a constitutional ammendment takes place. Property would be protected, but it wouldn't be in the constitution, due to the fact that it could be used against us for the reasons I point out.

I am not anti-property. I am anti-anticompetition. It just so happens that property and indeed, economics, quickly become anticompetitive when one person or corporation owns everything.

AltToWar · 2002-11-29 14:54:09

I added the "An individual has the right to own the majority of the fruits of ones own labors." to the constitution because I was inspired by KSR constitution and disinspired by the current state of the economic stratification in america.

I am one of the minority that truely believes that america's democratic republic has been completely usurped by corporate wealth.

A government stands as a framework for economics just as much (if not more) as a framework for law and order.

I believe there sould be safeguard aginst the power weilded by wealthy individuals and institutions. Just as any branch of government needs checks and balances to prevent corruption, the wealthy and powerful need to somehow come under the same amount of accountability.

The challenge to this is great though.

Too restrictive of Constitutional laws will promote corruption and demotivate the masses form enterprising endevors.

To lenient laws will be quickly overcome by loopholes.

I think to solve the problem a new approach must be taken at the elemental level.

The true basis of the problem must be found, and a change at that level must be made.

Perhaps if all corporations must by law be employee owned.

Perhaps if all laborers must be pade at least 51% of the profit made from the products they help produce.

Perhaps if individual wealth is non-tranferrable. All accumulated wealth is returned to the state at death.

Perhaps the size of corporations could be limited.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-29 19:03:13

I had a feeling it was you who added that bit to the constitution AltToWar. KSR's consitution is indeed inspiring. The commentary afterwards is just so... amazing. It actually feels like you're there, in some future Mars history. I still have not had a chance to begin reading the Trilogy again though.

But don't think you're a minority when you think American has been usurped by corporate wealth (ie, that it's a plutocracy). I think this mindset is actually a majority here. And indeed, around the world. Though I can't say I enjoy the move towards conservatism here, nor the whole degradation of science (both from a public interest point of view, and in the classroom), I still think as a whole, we have plenty of potential.

I agree that we ought to safeguard individuals from the rich and powerful. And I am certainly not suggesting that we abolish property, or money or whatever (which is a major misconception I see, whenever I mention socialism- it's a construct that encompasses many theories and you can't claim that one form of organization is more suited to it than another).

By in large, I disagree that a totally restrictive constitution can promote corruption. China's Constituion is quite descriptive, if not defining the ?ideal? person completely, but doesn't allow corruption.There are lots of safeguards against corruption, and China is cracking down on every form that exists there. Interestingly, and I know this may sound weird, but there is this a fund officals can deposit ?donations? (ie, bribes) into and get receipts for, so that they can counter allegations of corruption later on. It's not great, but it's a start, since it does enforce some bit of accountablity.

The problem with China's constitution, though, is that it's overly oppressive in some areas, with some unnecessary concepts. Due to the Martian environment, and our reliance on technology (not necessarily super-high level like I optimistically speak of, I'm just generally speaking), we will have ?natural? restrictions that don't even have to be defined in a constitution.

The Chinese constitution gives you the right to have free religion, as long as that religion doesn't affect you or people around you negatively. Though one may argue that this can vaguely deny one the right to have a religion, it's an objective proposal. In a more democratic China (China is basically ?playing? democratic now- the current young generation is the true Chinese democracy), this wouldn't even be a problem. Falun qi-gong was banned because it was ?disruptive.? Right now it's arguable, since China is admittely not really democratized at the momment. But there is probably some legitimacy to it. Is it necessary to say within the constitution that one cannot practice religion if it's negative? I don't think so, but you decide.

The truth, is, though, and I'll take a quote from a friend of mine; ?Consitutions are worth the paper they're written on, and not much more.? It's true. Constitutions need a good backing, and a fairly secure, educated society to work. And that doesn't come magically.

Corporations being employee owned is good, but I would think that the best solution would be to require all corporations books be open to the public. Completely. Utterly. Every file. No one would dare cook the books then. People are always snooping around. It wouldn't surprise me if people took it upon themselves to do double auditing for companies, just to find that rare corrupt company (one must note that corruption would be rare). This obviously doesn't fix a wealth distribution problem (I think the 51% economic benefit is the best solution, myself), but it does help.

A complete estate return is unfair, though. People do have things which are of sentimental value. Perhaps 49% of the estate ought to be returned? Sounds logical... but this does undoubtedly require a lot of thought (this isn't a consitutional thing, though).

Palomar · 2002-11-30 10:06:35

The Chinese constitution gives you the right to have free religion, as long as that religion doesn't affect you or people around you negatively. Though one may argue that this can vaguely deny one the right to have a religion, it's an objective proposal.

*How are you defining the word "objective" in your phrase "objective proposal" - ?

Freedom of religion so long as it doesn't "negatively effect" you or people around you...

The problem is, -who- decides what is "negative," and why? The implications of that are as broad as the Grand Canyon.

IMO it's just a slick, conniving way to proclaim they have freedom of religion when in fact they wish to keep the door wide open for stomping on any religion they deem "negative" or "a threat." And knowing the human penchant for "my religion is the best and the true, yours is deceitful and bad," it won't take long for others to proclaim, "that other religion is having a negative effect on me!"

True freedom doesn't have conditions placed on it.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-30 15:54:57

Cindy, the applicable part of the constitution is: Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.

By ?objective? I mean that you can certainly look at a situation and a body of individuals can say whether or not religious activities are disrupting public order, imparing the health of citizens or interfering with the educational system. Falun qi-gong members have taken over TV stations various times to ?promote? their religion. They neglect to tell people, of course, why it was banned in the first place. Falun qi-gong was causing suicide and psychotic breaks in some people, at least, sufficient enough for it to be banned. Obviously the vast majority of members were and are harmless. But every time they take out a TV station, you know they're ruining their respectablity. Some argue that it was banned due to the fact that it's really just an free exercise regimine, and it competes with other non-free forms of qi-gong. And there is probably truth to both sides of the story. And like I said, I don't think a constitution needs to be this way.

?Negatively affect? was just my short version. It's actually quite concise. And I don't think it's designed as a slick way to stomp religion, I think it was an honest problem that requires a solution (ie, how to keep the satan worshippers from killing people). The key here, is that these words mean nothing if there aren't people who are sitting around willing to uphold them. This goes for every constitution ever written. Just look at the obvious and blatant disregard for the US constitution. If there aren't people willing to criticize the government for doing wrong (and if the government doesn't listen to criticism- ie, they execute or jail people who criticize), there's no point. The Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea (communists) have a really ?nice? constitution, doesn't mean their society reflects it. Ain't no democracy there, I can assure you.

You say that, ?True freedom doesn't have conditions placed on it.? Do I have a right to restrict your freedom of speech by using my freedom of speech?

Palomar · 2002-11-30 21:36:40

You say that, ?True freedom doesn't have conditions placed on it.? Do I have a right to restrict your freedom of speech by using my freedom of speech?

*How could you restrict my freedom of speech by simply by exercising your own?

It's my weekend, so I may or may not be here to follow subsequent posts...just being courteous to let you know...

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-30 22:22:13

How could you restrict my freedom of speech by simply by exercising your own?

Doesn't hate speech ultimately lead to restriction of others freedom of speech? Why is it that there are laws against hate speech, yet the constitution says we have the freedom of speech? Why can't the constitution say that you have the freedom of speech except hate speech? What's the difference? A precieved ?extra? freedom? People who use the freedom of speech to push agendas that are inherently non-free speech are hypocrites and don't deserve the freedom of speech.

You know, I'm with everyone else on the matter of restriction, mind you; in that as little as possible is best. I was just diverging from the current topic slightly because I don't think concise constitutions are inherently evil, nor do I think restrictive constitutions are inherently evil (though I find the latter quite impractical).

AltToWar · 2002-11-30 23:54:22

In america there are no laws restricting hate speech.

The exception comes into play when you 'incite violence'.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-01 00:43:36

There are places in the US where you can go and throw about racial slurs and the like and not get in ?trouble,? but laws regarding discrimination are national as far as I know. You can't cut into someone over race and the like. You can get in trouble for being a hate monger.

Hate speech isn't banned everywhere, obviously. Otherwise KKK and the like would be banned. It's just largely dilluted if not illegal in the workplace; especially in cities. Places where it actually matters to the physical well being of someone else.

The key here, I think, is that when disassociation is possible, it's okay, but when disassociation isn't possible, (ie, where you work), it's banned. And I think that should ultimately be the crux of how civil rights are taken care of.

Palomar · 2002-12-01 13:59:33

In america there are no laws restricting hate speech.
The exception comes into play when you 'incite violence'.

*Interesting that the conversation has swerved in this direction. I seem to recall a news item roughly 6-7 years ago, wherein a wealthy white woman, owner of a basketball team, referred to one of her players as her "Million-Dollar Ni**er" [I personally dislike that word; it's ugly], and was essentially confined to her estate, and I think attempts were made to press legal charges against her. I don't like the n-word, but trying to prohibit others from using racial slurs anti-freedom of speech.

On the other hand, the phrase "white trash" gets sprinkled about rather liberally...usually by whites against other whites.

Too bad people can't try to resolve their differences in a more mature, cultured fashion...but I guess many folks never graduate off the elementary school playground.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-01 14:26:43

I don't like the n-word, but trying to prohibit others from using racial slurs anti-freedom of speech.

Well, I agree for the most part. I think people are largely capable of being civil towards one another, and the best way to exemplify that is to show that their behavior is inherently unfree, if not undemocratic. There's nothing more undemocratic than to tell someone to ?go back to <insert stereotyped nationality here>.? People like that infuriate me; I wouldn't mind having China's reeducation camps for those assholes. When someone says that, I ask, ?So, are you from a native American tribe?? they reply ?No.? and I chuckle and say, ?Then who in the hell are you to talk? It's a damn shame no one told your ancestors to go back where they came from.?

Anyway, I can certainly see a justification for giving people incentive to be nice to one another (ie, making laws that allow you to sue someone for being a total fucktard). It's really ridiculous to think that people ought to be able to walk around calling each other racial slurs or other discriminatory insults in the workplace.

And I don't think this is a case of lack of tolerance. People are total assholes. If they can't understand the concept of equality, they certainly don't deserve to be protected by it.

On the other hand, the phrase "white trash" gets sprinkled about rather liberally...usually by whites against other whites.

Black people often call one another ?nigger? so it's not like there's a double standard, or anything. The key is that groups use words exclusively, and are offended when those words are used outside their groups.

Cobra Commander · 2002-12-02 08:26:27

Anyway, I can certainly see a justification for giving people incentive to be nice to one another (ie, making laws that allow you to sue someone for being a total fucktard). It's really ridiculous to think that people ought to be able to walk around calling each other racial slurs or other discriminatory insults in the workplace.

Laws to force civility? Lawsuits simply for being an asshole? This is hell your describing! Just try to imagine this forum if everyone that ever wrote something un-civil were sued. Political-correctness run wild. Madness.
If someone says something completely asinine and the law prevents me from calling them a dumbass, something is very wrong. The constitution needs a "Right to be a total asshole" worked in.

And I don't think this is a case of lack of tolerance. People are total assholes. If they can't understand the concept of equality, they certainly don't deserve to be protected by it.

This is that liberal intolerance I speak about. Of course it's never called intolerance because liberals aren't intolerant, oh no, they're all about freedom and individual rights and diversity. As long as you don't disagree with them or offend anyone. If I ever find myself living in a world where not a single person says or does anything that pisses me off, I'm going to have to resort to villainy just to keep things interesting.

clark · 2002-12-02 10:10:46

Interesting turn this has all taken.

I see your point of view Josh, but I disagree. it seems you want to solve the disparity of birth that we all inhereit upon our arrival into this world. Some have an inherent advantage by dint of being born to certain parents in certain locations on the globe, others have less advantage by the same token. Our children ultimetly start based on the choices we make now.

Shall we instutite a government then that will rectify this situation for all children whose parents were less than able to provide the maxium advantages as those parents who were able?

One can abrogate their own rights. The question is, would you? Sure, for speech, maybe, but how about labor?

For labor? What of altruism? What of community service? Volunteerism? In these situations I am willingly abbroating my right to the fruits of my labor. What of the university grad student working on his thesis who develops a new technology? The university provides the resources, by way of government funded grant, which makes it possible for the grad student to test his theories- he would be unable to do any of this without the university or the government grant- and he does so without knowing that his theory will work, and does so mainly to get his PHD- does he deserve or even require a majority of the fruits of his labor?

Indeed. But remember, you can't really offer it at a steep price without someone depending on you. Otherwise it's bad business practice.

I'm pretty sure I know where you stand, but the free market system is not so bad, and has proven to benefit mankind any many respects... what was it you said... tee hee?

Actually, I disagree. This is realized by law [owning your own labor]. Lower animals can indeed have property rights, look at territorial animals

Umm, no. Lower animals cannot have property- why? Becuase lower animals cannot enter into mutualy binding agreements- it's the communication gap Josh, don't be silly. As for owning our own labor- this is NOT realized by any law other than the mutual recognition that we are both free individuals that have an inherent right to self determination. I need no law, and you need no law to state what is. If it is otherwise, than we accept slavery. I have choice- you have choice. This choice allows us to decide how and in what way we will receive compensation for whatever it is we do or choose to do- you cannot force me to do that which I do not want to do, you must compel me.

Law can dictate that you own nothing; as would be the case if you were a slave

Which is why I added the right to ownership in the first place Josh! If we have a right to the fruits of our labor, but no right to property, we will in effect perpetuate a type of slavery whereby we must work becuase we can never have anything- it is perpetual dependance that you cry against- and ironically would be the result of your stance!

What law says that I have a right to the benefits of all of my labor?

The inherent right to self determination as a free thinking indiviual. Is someone forcing me to work? If so, then it is little more than slavery. If not, then I am there by some choice, as such, I choose the conditions which I am working.

And I would argue that most of my labor is exhausted on someone else, higher up on the wealth chain. I would even continue to argue that a large portion of humans can never hope to be very high on that wealth chain.

You are arguing against the structure- more "hiearchy is the devils tool". Are you a unionist or just a communist?
Speicalization is a double edged sword- those people higher up on the chain are also the most disposable- the people lower on the chain are less so, but by virtue of population and skill requirements, they are the most easily replaceable.

Don't think the USA is a true reflection of the whole of humanity. If anything, it's a reflection of a humanity improperly balanced.

I don't think this.

Um, how about the people in ravaged nations where most resources are completely drained, where most people have to take on one job (see: growing coco or coffee or... drugs exclusively- for a whole nation) to survive? People don't have choices in the way you envision.

In what way do people have choices then? Either you have choice, or you don't- if not, you are little more than a slave. Are they slaves then? Perhaps it would be more productive to look at those individual situations instead of railing against the entire system which may or may not contribute to their overall suffering. I understand what you are getting at, and I do agree in part, but I think it has more to do with hyper capitalism and its use to maintain supremacy...

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-02 14:15:30

Cobra Commander,

Laws to force civility? Lawsuits simply for being an asshole? This is hell your describing! Just try to imagine this forum if everyone that ever wrote something un-civil were sued.

Tsk, you're silly. We're not talking about ‘forcing civility.’ We're talking about having the environment in which you work is no more stressful than the job you do. What, you think air traffic controllers ought to put up with other employes who are total assholes with regard to issues unrelated to performance (ie, skin color, gender, etc)?

(One must note that they would be fired immediately in the real world- oh my! I'm sure the bosses sure are ‘intolerant,’ oh the shame! )

Of course, we can't sue each other on the internet, because we can easily disassociate from those we want to disagree with. We can't do that in the workplace. We're talking about job security here.

Political-correctness run wild. Madness. If someone says something completely asinine and the law prevents me from calling them a dumbass, something is very wrong.

Um, see, I didn't even suggest that. I wasn't even talking about ‘putting something into place,’ I was referring to what we already have in place. And it's hardly akin to being able to sue someone for being called silly names. We're talking about abuse over a long period of time. And then you have to be able to prove it (in the court of law you have to prove your case- and in the US, your case doesn't even go to court unless you can prove to the EEOC that you actually have a case).

The constitution needs a "Right to be a total asshole" worked in.

Of course, we're not talking about ‘being assholes,’ I had explicitly referred to discriminatory insults in the previous paragraph, and I didn't think I changed the subject. The constitution gives you the right to be a total asshole, that's what the freedom of speech is all about.

This is that liberal intolerance I speak about. Of course it's never called intolerance because liberals aren't intolerant, oh no, they're all about freedom and individual rights and diversity.

You've spoken about liberal intolerence? I haven't seen it. I'd like for you to point out a case where liberals are intolerent where a justification towards equality was non-existant. If it's reasonable, I will agree with you. However, I tend to like the concept of equality, so expect me to explain if I disagree.

The problem is that a lot of times both sides exaggerate each others political philosophies.

Explain to my why you deserve any right to equality if you can't tolerate another persons behavior when it comes to the stablity of society. We're not talking about agreeing with them. We're talking about not being a whiney, bigotted asshole who makes life a bitch for someone they dislike because of skin color or some other ridiculous non-issue.

And if you don't think people like that exist, you're sorely mistaken. These people, are, as I said, total assholes.

If I ever find myself living in a world where not a single person says or does anything that pisses me off, I'm going to have to resort to villainy just to keep things interesting.

Show me where I even suggested that we have a world where “not a single person says or does anything that pisses people off.” Being a ‘fucktard’ means daily harrassment by an employeer or fellow employee over non-issues completely unrelated to their job performance.

I would consider it undemocratic to beat on someone over skin color, gender, nationality, religion, etc, but I would not consider it undemocratic to critizise someone over their job performance, and so on.

This is not a stretch, and this is not intolerence. If you can't understand democracy, you don't deserve the benefits.

clark,

It seems you want to solve the disparity of birth that we all inhereit upon our arrival into this world.

Yeah, you could say that. You have to agree that chosing ones parents is a very difficult task indeed.

For labor? What of altruism? What of community service? Volunteerism? In these situations I am willingly abbroating my right to the fruits of my labor.

Sure, but in many cases you yourself are benefitting from this. If not psycholigically, directly, since you're helping your own community and so on. It's not like altruism is a waste of your individual resources, unlike say, laboring away in some huge company getting a small slave wage that is highly disproportionate to the labor you put in.

I'm pretty sure I know where you stand, but the free market system is not so bad, and has proven to benefit mankind any many respects... what was it you said... tee hee?

Tee hee. You know I'm for the free market, clark. I've said it a few dozen times at least. What you guys seem to be neglecting to see, is that free markets don't exist when you have monopolies.

Umm, no. Lower animals cannot have property- why? Becuase lower animals cannot enter into mutualy binding agreements.

Sure they can. Bear one beats bear two at a fight, and bear two leaves bear one's territory alone. But property isn't exactly defined by ‘mutually binding agreements.’ Property is defined by enforcement. Binding agreements are only a side effect- and the one with the biggest gun almost always manages to win.

As for owning our own labor- this is NOT realized by any law.

It needs to be, and that's what we're arguing here.

I have choice- you have choice. This choice allows us to decide how and in what way we will receive compensation for whatever it is we do or choose to do- you cannot force me to do that which I do not want to do, you must compel me.

Can anyone who has never had an education instantly become a brain surgeon? Your choices are limited by your environment. If you were in some third world country, and you were an educated brain surgeon, you can't go an operate, etc, without the proper resources.

I don't need to ‘force’ you to do something. I just keep you in a position where you can't do anything for yourself. And I make it seem like it's natural or whatever. So compelling you to do things for me is quite easy. Ares Corp has people slaving away, and I don't recall there being any conclusion that they would have all sorts of magical choices.

Just like third world nations exclusively cater to first world nations needs. Do they have a choice?

If we have a right to the fruits of our labor, but no right to property.

I suggested we ought to throw a clause in saying that the government can't take away our possessions, didn't I? (It was a page or two back, about the military.) I think that ought to go further than that.

But we can't even have the majority of our labor without it being expressed as property or possessions.

We will in effect perpetuate a type of slavery whereby we must work becuase we can never have anything.

How could I possibly be able to benefit from a majority of my own labor if I can't have possessions or property, though? I don't quite see it. Being able to have a majority of your own labor, means that you are able to have a fair portion of physical resources, this could mean property, it could mean anything.

I think I know what you're suggesting, but a government that disallowed property or possessions would be denying one a majority benefit of their own labor.

It is perpetual dependance that you cry against- and ironically would be the result of your stance!

I need a hypothetical.

How can one have the economic benefits of a majority of their own labor if they cannot have possessions or property?

Just to preempt a response you may have, I think that government taxation (if necessary) ought to come from employeers, not the employeed. So you couldn't have a government tax away the majority of your own labor (and even if they did, it would be unconstitutional! )

The self determination clause (which I like, BTW- it's not in KSR's constitution) gives you the choice as to how you recieve the majority of your own labor.

You are arguing against the structure- more "hiearchy is the devils tool". Are you a unionist or just a communist?

You damn right I'm arguing against the structure. It's unnecessarily disproportionate, and it's the cause of more harm than good. This isn't some convulted, ideological argument, it's just a fact of nature. First world countries bleed third world countries dry... literally.

Speicalization is a double edged sword- those people higher up on the chain are also the most disposable

You say that, then you say that people lower are easier to replace. How is that not a contradiction? I agree that people lower on the chain are easy to replace, but I totally disagree that people higher up are most disposable. The very nature of our structure has us relying on them. The electric pole diggers get paid less than the electricians; because without the electricians the electric pole diggers would have no job!

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need specalization, but that's just how things work currently.

I don't think this.

Yes you do. Just look at ya, rehashin' the same stuff you said before.

In what way do people have choices then?

This is a philosophical argument we don't need to get in to right now. I would love to get back on topic, to be honest. I hate it when we diverge like this (probably my fault).

People do have a choice to survive or die. Capitalism just exploits humans instinctual desire to live. And in that regard, they don't have many choices.

Are they slaves then? Perhaps it would be more productive to look at those individual situations instead of railing against the entire system which may or may not contribute to their overall suffering.

Before globalism, third world countries were largely independent. They grew their own food, and basically lived autonomously. Perhaps it would be more productive to simply get off this subject now and get back on to what this thread was intended to be.

clark · 2002-12-02 14:56:24

Sure, but in many cases you yourself are benefitting from this. If not psycholigically, directly, since you're helping your own community and so on.

Ah, so there are intangible fruits of our labor then? I am reaping the majority of the fruits of my labor by investing my time into helping the "community", which inderictly benefits me? Quantify it. Tell me how much. Tell me what a "majority" is in this situation. If I go help another community I don't live in, am I still reaping the fruits of my labor? THis whole issue of enshrining a right to a majority of ones own labor is a red herring. Shall the pole diggers for the electricians receive benefits conmeserate with that of the electrician? Each is unable to do their job without the other- is each entitled to receive the same amount for differing jobs?

You agree that specialization exsists, yet this idea of yours would neccessiraly destroy any incentive TO specialize. As we specialize, our skills become dependant upon other specialists so we may complete ever increasingly complex tasks.

The seller cannot sell without a finsihed product, an artisan cannot create a finished product without the raw materials, the extractor of the raw materials cannot do their job without an idea of what to extract, which originate from an invetor, who often times invents when given the luxary of time to just sit and think and invent- which occurs only with funding from a banker of some sort.

Each is integral to the final product, each could not do their job without the other. Sahll all enjoy EQUAL benefits of the final product? Shall we reward the miner on par with the artisan? The salesman on par with the inventor? If so, then what incentive do I or you have to be anything in particular? Wouldn't you choose the easiest job, the least taxing? After all, the end result is the same- equal reward for the final job.

The miner gets paid less than the inventor for the simple reason that most people can do what he does. I am sorry if he came from a poor area, and was unable to get the education to better himself and become an inventor or an artisan, but, as it is said, that's life. Allow for social mobility- allow for the opportunity to better ones self, and then this whole issue is rendered moot- the poor and undfortunate that are born to lowly spots on the economic food chain are then empowered to improve their lot, and the lot of their children. If no such social mobility exsists, then yes, you have all the travesty you paint- but thee are other means to achieve what you want without such drastic and short sighted measures.

Property is defined by enforcement

I give you a point. But lower animals do not own property, no matter how you play it.

I don't need to ?force? you to do something. I just keep you in a position where you can't do anything for yourself.

Solution lies in social mobility, not in a redesign of the economic system.

Just like third world nations exclusively cater to first world nations needs. Do they have a choice?

Often times, no, becuase their opportunity for self advancement is limited. No matter of economics will change this- social polices that allow for people to create new choices for themselves will.

Being able to have a majority of your own labor, means that you are able to have a fair portion of physical resources, this could mean property, it could mean anything.

Or it could mean nothing- that's the point.

How can one have the economic benefits of a majority of their own labor if they cannot have possessions or property?

I can get paid quite nicely, but rent a state owned house for the rest of my life. I could get paid quite nicely, but have no alternative but to buy food grown on state owned farms- I never have the opportunity to grow my own food. I will always have to work, and get paid nicely, in order to pay for the things I need- food, clothing, shelter, etc. If I have no opportunity to invest my labor into something physical, tangible, and lasting, I will forever be a slave to "work".

You say that, then you say that people lower are easier to replace. How is that not a contradiction?

It has to do with market forces and how they apply to labor. Less skills neccessary to do a job equals greater pool of labor- more skills neccessary to do job equals smaller pool of labor. The lowwer down on the economic chain you are, the more replacable you are becuase there are many others to take your place (the rise of the middle class didn't begin until the black plague- it killed the labor pool, and wages increased for a majority of people)- the higher up on the economic chain you are makes you less replaceable, but you are mroe disposable becuase you are an impediment to effeciency.

Case in point: we will always have musicians- but the people who will suffer at the advent of the internet are the middle managers who are involved int he distribution chain- the internet makes it more effecient for an artist to market their work- the middle men (read higher up on food chain) get saked- they are disposable- the artists though will always be neccessary (however, anyone could do what they do (I do not believe this, just trying to convey a point, please do not flame)) Do you see?

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-03 03:29:10

I'll let you have this one clark (though a simple solution to the majority of ones labor ?problem? would simply be to append, ?to do with as you will? to the end- couldn't help it! ).

To propose another question and try to get back on topic, though. What about taxes? Is this world government going to tax us to death? How will government employees get paid, etc?

Cobra Commander · 2002-12-03 07:41:55

This is not a stretch, and this is not intolerence. If you can't understand democracy, you don't deserve the benefits.

We're not talking about ?forcing civility.? We're talking about having the environment in which you work is no more stressful than the job you do. What, you think air traffic controllers ought to put up with other employes who are total assholes with regard to issues unrelated to performance (ie, skin color, gender, etc)?

I do not think that employees should be subjected to abuse because of race or other issues not relevant to the job. However, as you have said, bigoted people are out there. These anti-discrimination laws don't actually affect workplace discrimination, merely how it is expressed. Some people think that treating someone like shit and refering to them as such is somehow less demeaning than a racial slur. I don't see this distinction. So from my perspective we either have to accept that some people are just assholes, or weed out anyone who offends anyone else. I understand that many people don't see it as an all or nothing situation, but the distinction between what abuse is acceptable and what isn't is arbitrary.

You've spoken about liberal intolerence? I haven't seen it. I'd like for you to point out a case where liberals are intolerent where a justification towards equality was non-existant. If it's reasonable, I will agree with you. However, I tend to like the concept of equality, so expect me to explain if I disagree.

Now, I want to be clear. I realize that not all liberals are guilty of the intolerance I'm going to explain, but there certainly are some who are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their basic assumptions. Using the example of equality: equality of opportunity is great, I fully support efforts to ensure that everyone has the same opportunities (within reason, of course. Otherwise we have forced redistribution of wealth, which causes more problems than it can be expected to solve). The problem is, that somewhere along the line, a minority of liberals got the idea that equality means "equality of outcome". This mindset leads to measures that rather than equalizing opportunity instead give preference to the supposedly dis-advantaged group. I'm not speaking only of Affirmative Action, but it is obviously the most clear cut example. There are people out there, self-proclaimed liberals, who villify one group in the name of fairness to another. They are extremely intolerant of people who do not share their interpretation.
I won't be suprised if you disagree, I expect it, but unlike these "liberals" I will actually consider your point of view and if warranted adjust my own opinion should a good point be made. If one claims to be tolerant of others, it must include even those who totally reject their views. Anything less is merely degrees of intolerance. To be truly tolerant, one must accept even the intolerant for what they are.

This is not a stretch, and this is not intolerence. If you can't understand democracy, you don't deserve the benefits.

See above.

clark · 2002-12-03 10:52:42

Any realistic federal government would need the power to tax on its own.

Perhaps limit the taxing power to inter-habitat trade, and interplanetary exports and imports. This allows for trade to be conducted at a larger level, and provides the funds for a functioning government. There shouldn't be much need for a military or many of the common functions held by a socialist federal government- merely allow the individual habitats to develop their own way.

You want to live in a high tax habitat, by all means, who am I to say no? It might even keep some of the taxation lower as different habitats compete with one another to attract people and business. Just a thought.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-03 11:50:08

Hmm, Cobra... ?To be truly tolerant, one must accept even the intolerant for what they are.? is like saying, ?To have a true free market, one must accept the monopolies for what they are, despite the fact that monopolies destroy any recognizable competition.? I won't argue with you with regard to the rest of the stuff you said (though I could- especially with regard to the horrible misconceptions about AA). I'll just hope you see where I'm coming from.

But anyway, with regard to tax. I don't think the government should be allowed to tax mere trade. A government needs resources and these can be provided by each settlement in any way. The settlements, of course, can decide how they want to distribute resources to the government, so I think it's best that the government have no control over how trade is taxed.

clark · 2002-12-03 11:57:38

What does a government need "resources" for? What kind of resources? What would it do with ore or wood pulp?

If the central government is dependant upon the charity of the individual habitats, in what they deem they wish to give, you end up with an untenable central government.

Articles of Confederation taght us this lesson. The current UN model also demonstrates that the best way to undermine a central government is to deny them the power to provide for themselves.

Our current federal government would be powerless if it was dependant upon the States for tax reimbursement.

The federal government exsists between the areas outside of any habitat, so they should have jurisdiction over trade- it also allows the federal government of Mars the ability to break up habitat "monoploies" by applying tarrifs if neccessary.

How is that?

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-03 15:18:00

Hmm, I wasn't talking charity, I was talking dues, basically.

Here's how I see it. Firstly, since large settlements would elect their individual representatives (or at least they ought to- I don't understand your current revision granting a certain ?percentage of the available seats,? it's not clear enough! ), they would be in charge of taking care of their individual representatives. The world government doesn't need to tax settlements since these settlements already pay their representatives. What's wrong with that logic?

Also, I think the majority labor rule would automatically destory any chance for monopolies to run away with themselves.

clark · 2002-12-03 15:37:52

What is the majority labor rule? I'm a bit confused.

Charity, dues, whatever...

The UN has "dues", phat lot of good that does um.

As for a "certain percentage". The total number of seats is fixed (unless changed by constutional amendment), the number of seats being divided by population size- something akin to the house of reps in the US.

There is more involved than just "paying reps" that the federal government would be responsible for, most notably, trying to coordinate, or mitigate, terraforming efforts.

soph · 2002-12-03 16:53:19

paying one representative is not a good idea. unless there is some overseeing entity, who knows where the money will go. a new government is a good way to get rid of some of the excessive "pork" and bureaucracy in American government. Here are some laws to this effect that I think would help:

1. No inclusion of unrelated issues into bills just to get these issues through. (i.e. organic corn in an oil bill)

2. An annual, or better, quarterly report of spending from each representative (or "state") in concise language, easily understandable by common people.

3. Representatives can only serve for a maximum of 10 years (or using 4 year terms, 12 years).

4. The public should be made aware of bills, they should be wirtten in clear language, easy for common people to read, and available for common people.

These might help a little. Im not one to push the freedom of information acts though--the government has the right to do certain things without us knowing. if we had to know everything, very little in the way of high-tech advancements (nuclear energy, airplanes, etc) would occur. people think they know everything best, which is why a government, like a parent, has to do things for the people that the people never know about. there is some truth to the adage, people are stupid.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-04 05:25:10

clark, the one AltToWar and I seem to agree upon (seems everyone else who has participated in this thread does not agree with it). The ?Right to [retain] the majority of the economic benefits of one's own labor.? Monopolies can only exist because they drain and control resources from other parts of the economy, this rule distributes those resources fairly.

I don't see how taxing all trade is going to enforce the power of a senator. His power exists because everyone around him respects his position. It doesn't matter how he's getting paid. Nor do I see how taxing all trade is going to insure that the government is allowed access to resources. A state could conceivably cut off most ties to the US government, and exist completely automonously; and stop requiring federal assistance. They don't pay federal taxes, because they don't get federal benefits. Remember, we're trying to centralize the governments power as little as possible.

The reason I asked about a ?certain percentage? is because you seem to be implying that this certain percentage will be established somehow other than on a per-settlement election basis. You seem to be suggesting that a popular vote will decide all the senators, and those senators will be magically assigned positions as representatives over settlements. But since you alluded to the House of Representatives, I can see you're talking about districting (which is what KSR's constitution talks about, and what I think is best).

soph, just a thing. I don't think we should limit how many terms a person can have. I think it would be better to simply keep people from serving consecutive terms. You get the best of both worlds.

Runnerbrax · 2003-08-08 08:50:15

I don't know what you guys are going to say about this but I'm probably going to step on everyone's toes with this statement. We can't have a world government. Or should i say, one government to rule the whole planet of mars is a EXTREMLEY absurd idea. Do you think China or Argentina would like to be ruled by Canadians ? IF us Mars freaks do get our way and go to mars i beleive the MARssociety would start thier own government somewhere. newmars would start their own such and such and so for. There is no way the entire planet would agree to be ruled by one government. There are too many people and ideas to cater too. Thats the one thing i didn't like about KSR's books, its too utopian.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-11-29 13:44:13

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

#52 2002-11-29 14:54:09

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

#53 2002-11-29 19:03:13

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

#54 2002-11-30 10:06:35

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

#55 2002-11-30 15:54:57

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

#56 2002-11-30 21:36:40

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

#57 2002-11-30 22:22:13

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

#58 2002-11-30 23:54:22

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

#59 2002-12-01 00:43:36

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

#60 2002-12-01 13:59:33

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

#61 2002-12-01 14:26:43

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

#62 2002-12-02 08:26:27

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

#63 2002-12-02 10:10:46

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

#64 2002-12-02 14:15:30

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

#65 2002-12-02 14:56:24

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

#66 2002-12-03 03:29:10

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

#67 2002-12-03 07:41:55

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

#68 2002-12-03 10:52:42

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

#69 2002-12-03 11:50:08

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

#70 2002-12-03 11:57:38

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

#71 2002-12-03 15:18:00

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

#72 2002-12-03 15:37:52

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

#73 2002-12-03 16:53:19

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

#74 2002-12-04 05:25:10

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

#75 2003-08-08 08:50:15

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

Board footer