Mapping a way forward

louis · 2017-03-15 03:52:46

These are fascinating issues. As soon as you have people on Mars you will have politics and government, even if it's just a three person crew, so these aren't meaningless speculations.

If we are looking for Earth models, the Swiss cantonal system looks good to me and would make sense as Mars settlements will not be large to begin with. The Swiss have a very decentralised model with a strong referenda element. However, I think Ian is being realistic in noting that the Mars Consortium - the Earth-based power - will have a strong influence over this new outpost of humanity. Initially they will need to have control over settlement policy, terraformation, and E-M Transit/migration.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-15 05:50:54

Terraformer wrote:

Tom, repeat after me: "Mars is not the United States of America".
Why have states? Why can't towns handle themselves? If they need to form bigger units to do something, then they can come to those agreements themselves.

Well considering that the most successful probes to Mars have been American, and Europe has not even launched one of its own astronauts into space onboard one of its own rockets, (they've always hitched a ride with someone else) then why would NASA want to start up a European style Democracy run by a Secretary or Prime Minister? Russia, if they want, can have Venus, the most successful probes to that planet have been Russian, Europe can get Titan if they want, the only probe to touch down in its surface was European. If I were a betting man, I would say Mars is going to be an American planet with an American form of government, it will take lots of immigrants of course, as that too is an American tradition. Europe is a rich continent, yet they can't quite manage to defend themselves against a second rate power like Russia, they need America's help, when are they going to stand on their own two feet? (That is the question Trump is asking most of all) Why would Martian colonists want a leader they call Prime Minister, that they do not elect directly, that they have to vote for someone else and trust that other person to vote for the Prime Minister they want? That seems like a very round-about form of representation, and the Parliamentarian system lacks balance of power between the Legislative Branch and the executive branch, one of the most famous failures of the parliamentary system was the rise to power of Hitler through parliamentarian maneuvers. Hitler as you know did not receive the majority of the vote, but it was through parliamentarian maneuvering that he became chancellor of Germany, and the lack of balance of power between the legislative branch and the executive branch, both being one and the same, allowed Hitler to rise to become Fuhrer of the Third Reich. Lots of Europeans like to berate American power, but the only Europeans that seem to want to make the sacrifices necessary to become a truly great power are the Russians! Europeans seem to be content to let someone else defend them, let some other country do the heavy lifting for their security. Mars is named after the Roman god of War, I think that signifies something. Mars was a well respected deity in the Roman Pantheon, unlike its Greek counterpart, Mars was not about the chaos of war, but more about the successful prosecution of a war. Much of the success attributed to the Romans was due to their successes on the battlefield. I think Mars deserves a Senate, not a parliament, a President and not a secretary.

Terraformer · 2017-03-15 10:01:03

That flag hurts my eyes.

Why wouldn't America have an English system of government, after all the first people to settle America were English. Let the South Americans have a Spanish system, since they were settled by Spain, but don't you agree America should be Parliamentary, since the most successful colonies were English?

RobertDyck · 2017-03-15 10:22:11

Tom, response by Terraformer said it best...

Terraformer wrote:

Tom, repeat after me: "Mars is not the United States of America".

You know damn well Mars is not the United States of America. The fact you concocted a new flag proves you know this. If Mars were the United States of America, it would use "Old Glory". The reason people want to go to Mars is explicitly to get away from the excessive unreasonable overbearing regulation that exists on Earth today. And to get away from taxes. If you claim Mars is part of the US, then it's subject to all the excessive unreasonable overbearing regulation that exists within the US. And its taxes. I'm not saying that regulation is any worse than other major Western countries, I'm saying the reason people want to go to Mars is to get away from all that.

Mars is a chance to start over. Regardless whether Mars does start over or not, Mars will never have your stupid flag. I don't know where you get "18 original states", there are no states. Are you stuck in some fantasy? The first time you posted this stupid flag you said...

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

20 red stars, one for each state, I've added 2 more to the original 18, one for Phobos and Deimos.

The United States of America is a signatory to the UN Outer Space Treaty. That means the United States cannot claim territory on Mars or any other celestial body. Scott Beach suggested establishing a land title registry with a country that did not sign that treaty. He posted...

Scott Beach wrote:

I previously suggested that we side-step the Outer Space Treaty by asking the Republic of Malta to establish a Mars Secretariat that could then issue “Mars Settlement Permits”. Since Malta is in the Mediterranean Sea it’s a difficult place to get to and from. An alternative is Andorra, a small country between France and Spain. The French “branch” of the Mars Society could contact and negotiate with Andorra.
The Mars Society might offer to pay the Principality of Andorra to issue a “Charter of the Government of Mars” (including a provision for a “Mars Secretariat”) and to appoint the chief administrative officer of the Secretariat. That officer might be given the title “Secretary of State of the Government of Mars”. The Secretary could issue Mars Settlement Permits in accordance with the terms of the Charter. The Secretary might also be given the power to proclaim the boundaries of national parks on Mars. Nearby settlements might be granted permission to operate concessions and tours in the parks.

This is a good idea. But the US cannot claim any territory on Mars. I disagree with establishing any sort of "park", that must be done by settlers who live on Mars, not anyone on Earth. But it might be a way to start registering land title.

And I also agree with Terraformer on this...

Terraformer wrote:

That flag hurts my eyes.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-03-15 10:22:37)

IanM · 2017-03-15 10:53:05

Terraformer wrote:

Tom, repeat after me: "Mars is not the United States of America".

This. The US will likely influence Mars far more than most other countries on Earth and American culture might very well provide the basis of Martian culture (to the extent that that's homogeneous), but saying that it will be the US like saying that the US is the UK or that Mexico is Spain. Mars will very likely develop its own culture and governance, especially if the corporation doesn't overstep and dictate day-to-day government.

Terraformer wrote:

Why wouldn't America have an English system of government, after all the first people to settle America were English. Let the South Americans have a Spanish system, since they were settled by Spain, but don't you agree America should be Parliamentary, since the most successful colonies were English?

This is off-topic, but if I'm not mistaken the answer is mainly because the US Constitution predates the full formation of the Westminster System outside of Britain into the other colonies. Royal Governors had their Executive Councils and Legislative Councils and could appoint them as they pleased, and the convention of responsible government, which compels Governors/Lieutenant Governors/Governors General to fill the Executive Councils with MPs of the majority party and demands that they report to the local rather than imperial legislature, was not set in stone (which led to friction and many of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence). Basically the American Model is that same "proto-Westminster" system, but with an elected head of state, which bypasses the need for responsible government, and the ability of the Legislature to override executive veto (akin to withholding Royal Assent) with a supermajority. The Latin American countries upon independence from Spain were heavily influenced by the US and copied that system.

Scott Beach · 2017-03-15 11:23:46

[Draft] Claim of Territorial Sovereignty and Establishment of the Government of Mars

The Mars Society is an association of persons who advocate the exploration and settlement of the planet Mars. Members of the Mars Society have requested that the Principality of Andorra (1) claim sovereignty over a portion of Mars and (2) adopt a legal system that facilitates the establishment of permanent settlements on Mars. In response to these requests, the Principality of Andorra does hereby claim sovereignty over the portion of Mars that is bounded on its western side by the line of longitude at -135 degrees west longitude, and on its eastern side by the line of longitude at -45 degrees west longitude, and on its northern side by the line of latitude at 45 degrees north latitude, and on its southern side by the line of latitude at -45 degrees south latitude.

The Principality of Andorra does hereby establish a subdivision named Government of Mars. The Government of Mars shall have an office known as the Mars Secretariat. The chief administrative officer of the Mars Secretariat shall be known as the Secretary of State of the Government of Mars. The Mars Society may nominate 3 to 5 people who are willing and able to serve as the Secretary. The Secretary shall be appointed by the Principality of Andorra.

The Secretary may issue “Mars Settlement Permits”. Each chapter of the Mars Society is eligible to apply for one Mars Settlement Permit.

After 10 settlements have been established in the portion of Mars claimed by the Principality of Andorra, 10 or more settlements may jointly declare that they are an independent nation. They may claim sovereignty over the portion of Mars described above and over other portions of Mars if the inhabitants, if any, of those other portions agree to be included in the new nation.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-15 11:24:32

Terraformer wrote:

That flag hurts my eyes.
Why wouldn't America have an English system of government, after all the first people to settle America were English. Let the South Americans have a Spanish system, since they were settled by Spain, but don't you agree America should be Parliamentary, since the most successful colonies were English?

I guess the reason is because the British showed how the parliamentary system could be abused to oppress them, so they wanted something different, something with more checks and balances on it so it wouldn't oppress them the way the UK did. Like the United States, Mars would start out as a bunch of colonies, maybe established by corporations, that band together to form a Federal government for planetary defense. That seemed to work pretty well for the USA.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-15 11:40:08

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom, response by Terraformer said it best...
Terraformer wrote:
Tom, repeat after me: "Mars is not the United States of America".
You know damn well Mars is not the United States of America. The fact you concocted a new flag proves you know this. If Mars were the United States of America, it would use "Old Glory". The reason people want to go to Mars is explicitly to get away from the excessive unreasonable overbearing regulation that exists on Earth today. And to get away from taxes. If you claim Mars is part of the US, then it's subject to all the excessive unreasonable overbearing regulation that exists within the US. And its taxes. I'm not saying that regulation is any worse than other major Western countries, I'm saying the reason people want to go to Mars is to get away from all that.
Mars is a chance to start over. Regardless whether Mars does start over or not, Mars will never have your stupid flag. I don't know where you get "18 original states", there are no states. Are you stuck in some fantasy? The first time you posted this stupid flag you said...
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
20 red stars, one for each state, I've added 2 more to the original 18, one for Phobos and Deimos.
The United States of America is a signatory to the UN Outer Space Treaty. That means the United States cannot claim territory on Mars or any other celestial body. Scott Beach suggested establishing a land title registry with a country that did not sign that treaty. He posted...

That doesn't mean that it can't be used as a model to form the basis of an independent government. Why not go with something that works rather than something that fails? The United States survived the worst that Europe had to throw at it, Kings, Empires and Communism! Europe went wrong in so many ways, there are many European countries, some of them failed and became empires, others tried to conquer the world and failed, one unleashed Communism on another. Seems to me the parliamentary system is unstable and tends towards excessive government centralism without a division of power and checks and balances. Seems like the Germans have learned not a thing through he rise of Hitler, their system did not stop him, we did!

Scott Beach wrote:
I previously suggested that we side-step the Outer Space Treaty by asking the Republic of Malta to establish a Mars Secretariat that could then issue “Mars Settlement Permits”. Since Malta is in the Mediterranean Sea it’s a difficult place to get to and from. An alternative is Andorra, a small country between France and Spain. The French “branch” of the Mars Society could contact and negotiate with Andorra.
Do either of those countries have space programs, can either of them send people to Mars on their own vehicles? I don't see why you want to reward these countries with a whole planet they are incapable of traveling to? How about having the most successful countries set up a Mars government rather than "also rans" that were pushed aside by history? Do you really want Switzerland as the model? A meek and modest European country incapable of defending itself, depending on other countries respecting its neutrality as their national defense. Well Mars is a lot bigger that Switzerland!
The Mars Society might offer to pay the Principality of Andorra to issue a “Charter of the Government of Mars” (including a provision for a “Mars Secretariat”) and to appoint the chief administrative officer of the Secretariat.

So you want a secretary running a whole planet?
That officer might be given the title “Secretary of State of the Government of Mars”. The Secretary could issue Mars Settlement Permits in accordance with the terms of the Charter. The Secretary might also be given the power to proclaim the boundaries of national parks on Mars. Nearby settlements might be granted permission to operate concessions and tours in the parks.
This is a good idea. But the US cannot claim any territory on Mars. I disagree with establishing any sort of "park", that must be done by settlers who live on Mars, not anyone on Earth. But it might be a way to start registering land title.
And I also agree with Terraformer on this...
Terraformer wrote:
That flag hurts my eyes.

You want to model the Mars government after the ineffective UN with its ineffective Secretary-General, wo unlike the secretary in the picture, can't even take dictation or fetch some coffee.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-15 11:43:16

Scott Beach wrote:

[Draft] Claim of Territorial Sovereignty and Establishment of the Government of Mars
The Mars Society is an association of persons who advocate the exploration and settlement of the planet Mars. Members of the Mars Society have requested that the Principality of Andorra (1) claim sovereignty over a portion of Mars and (2) adopt a legal system that facilitates the establishment of permanent settlements on Mars. In response to these requests, the Principality of Andorra does hereby claim sovereignty over the portion of Mars that is bounded on its western side by the line of longitude at -135 degrees west longitude, and on its eastern side by the line of longitude at -45 degrees west longitude, and on its northern side by the line of latitude at 45 degrees north latitude, and on its southern side by the line of latitude at -45 degrees south latitude.
https://planetcarto.files.wordpress.com … -mars1.jpg

Not these Andorians I suppose!

The Principality of Andorra does hereby establish a subdivision named Government of Mars. The Government of Mars shall have an office known as the Mars Secretariat. The chief administrative officer of the Mars Secretariat shall be known as the Secretary of State of the Government of Mars. The Mars Society may nominate 3 to 5 people who are willing and able to serve as the Secretary. The Secretary shall be appointed by the Principality of Andorra.
The Secretary may issue “Mars Settlement Permits”. Each chapter of the Mars Society is eligible to apply for one Mars Settlement Permit.
After 10 settlements have been established in the portion of Mars claimed by the Principality of Andorra, 10 or more settlements may jointly declare that they are an independent nation. They may claim sovereignty over the portion of Mars described above and over other portions of Mars if the inhabitants, if any, of those other portions agree to be included in the new nation.

RobertDyck · 2017-03-15 12:11:41

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Terraformer wrote:
That flag hurts my eyes.
I guess the reason is because the British showed how the parliamentary system could be abused to oppress them...

No, it's because you have red on blue. Have you studied any heraldry? That's the formal disciple to create flags. It was very common in the middle ages when most European citizens couldn't read. Each and every person of noble birth (read rich spoiled brat) had a unique flag for that person. That was the signature of the king or queen or lord or baron, etc. The rules of heraldry continue to this day. When I was part of a medieval recreation society I studied heraldry. I was expected to concoct a symbol for myself, a symbol to be painted on my shield when engaging in a tournament. Yes, the society used wooden swords and foam rubber axes, and real steel armour. Actually it was rattan, not wood, but that's not the point. English heraldry is subtly different than German heraldry, etc.

Under English heraldry you put a colour against a metal, or a metal on a colour. You could get fancy and use the word "tincture" instead of colour, but again, whatever. The recognized "metals" in English heraldry were silver and gold, but never actually painted as silver or gold. What they used was white and yellow. That means colour against white or yellow, and white or yellow against colour. Never ever EVER put blue against red. Green against red is accepted in German heraldry, but not English. However blue against red? That will never be accepted by anyone. The reason is humans have red, green, and blue "cones" in the retina of our eyes. We have roughly equal number of red and green cones, but only 1/10 the number of blue cones. That is 10 times as many red as blue, and 10 times as many green as blue. That means we don't see blue with very good resolution. Yellow is a combination of red and green, so that uses both sets of cones that have high resolution. Blue against yellow really means yellow (high resolution) against not-yellow. That uses absence of nerve signals from red and green cones in the "blue" area to produce high resolution. But red against blue means just never signals from red against just nerve signals from blue. Again, blue has poor resolution, so that's bad. Red has good resolution, but now you see a blurry line on the blue side but sharp line on the red side. That conflict causes what looks like a moving jiggly line. That hurts your eyes.

White against yellow would the the worst of all. Yellow is red+green, white is all three colours. That provides full nerve signal from both red and green cones on both sides, with the only difference being signal from blue on the white side, no signal from blue on the yellow side. That provides a blurry line that you cannot see with any resolution.

Yes, human eyes have a lot of rods. They are for dim light. Rods detect all light of any colour. In fact rods can see ultraviolet (UV), but the lens in human eyes has a coating that filters out UV. You don't want sunburn on your retina. Rods are a lot larger than cones, contain a lot of the photodye called retinal. This dye literally burns off when exposed to bright light. When you acclimate or get used to dark, your rods fill with lots of retinal. If you're exposed to sudden bright light while your rods are filled with that much retinal, what you see will be bight, overexposed, washed out. And your eyes will feel like they're burning. Because the retinal is literally decomposing, in a sense your eyes are burning. Rods are big clumsy pixels, providing poor resolution, but they can see in varying light levels, and can see in very dim light. However, in daylight or bright office light, rods do not contribute significantly to your vision. Since rods respond equally to all colours of light, they give you monochromatic vision, sometimes called "black and white".

My point is the colours of your flag hurt our eyes.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-03-15 16:03:22)

RobertDyck · 2017-03-15 12:25:22

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Why not go with something that works rather than something that fails?

I saw a debate by some Canadian politicians. One individual claimed every time the United States has attempted to export its system to other countries, it has failed. Canada has successfully exported its system to many countries, they succeeded. Well, that might be a bit of an exaggeration.

IanM wrote:

The Latin American countries upon independence from Spain were heavily influenced by the US and copied that system.

But Canada came up with a modification of the British parliamentary system. That system was adopted by all remaining colonies of the British empire, allowing them to become independent countries. So pretty much the entire British Commonwealth copied Canada's system. It works very well.

However, if you read the long posts earlier in this discussion thread, we tried to take the best of both American and Canadian systems, and scrap the bad parts.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

So you want a secretary running a whole planet?
...
You want to model the Mars government after the ineffective UN with its ineffective Secretary-General, wo unlike the secretary in the picture, can't even take dictation or fetch some coffee.

Don't be an ass. Or do you not know how America works? The American federal government has "secretaries" where British Commonwealth countries have ministers. Canada has a foreign minister, the American equivalent is "secretary of state". Canada has a finance minister, America has a "secretary of the treasury". "Attorney General" is the only American cabinet position not called "secretary".

Scott Beach · 2017-03-15 13:08:17

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

You want to model the Mars government after the ineffective UN with its ineffective Secretary-General, wo unlike the secretary in the picture, can't even take dictation or fetch some coffee.

No. "Secretariat" is a standard term for an administrative office. Please see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretariat

Terraformer · 2017-03-15 17:21:18

Talking about moving forward under the constraints of the Outer Space Treaty, perhaps the discussions around seasteading could help here. Namely, the use of flags of convenience, and the safety zones that are established around seagoing vessels (500m out from the vessels, I think). Assuming that the same laws which apply to the high seas are taken to apply to space - and in the absence of any agreement or ruling to the contrary, it's fair to assume this - there would be nothing stopping a government from setting up a "Space Colony Registry", whose job it is to oversee colonies that are registered under their flag. Indeed, they already do something like this for space launches, as required by international law, and America has already taken steps towards such a thing by agreeing to recognise the ownership of extraterrestrial resources that have been extracted (which really, I suppose, could be likened to fish caught in international waters...?).

So there's no need to claim sovereignty over the entire planet. If it wanted to, the United States could unilaterally set up a Colony Registry for Mars, and even suspend most American laws in the colonies such that they would be mainly self governing. Of course, it would probably be better if they entered into agreements with other countries to set up an international oversight organisation that would settle disputes and agree things like safety zones between colonies.

JohnX · 2017-03-15 18:35:38

(which really, I suppose, could be likened to fish caught in international waters...?).

In a Mars Society presentation last year (Oct 14, 2016, Legal Basis for Space Settlement & Sovereignty) this was mentioned by Dr. Henry Hertzfeld who seems to have a legal background. He said that currently, fish become the property of the fishermen when they are landed in the boat, and not before. Analogous to not claiming sovereignty on Mars but being able to extract resources and use them, sell them. He used it as a possible analogy to asteroid mining.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-16 00:06:57

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Terraformer wrote:
That flag hurts my eyes.
I guess the reason is because the British showed how the parliamentary system could be abused to oppress them...
No, it's because you have red on blue. Have you studied any heraldry? That's the formal disciple to create flags. It was very common in the middle ages when most European citizens couldn't read. Each and every person of noble birth (read rich spoiled brat) had a unique flag for that person. That was the signature of the king or queen or lord or baron, etc. The rules of heraldry continue to this day. When I was part of a medieval recreation society I studied heraldry. I was expected to concoct a symbol for myself, a symbol to be painted on my shield when engaging in a tournament. Yes, the society used wooden swords and foam rubber axes, and real steel armour. Actually it was rattan, not wood, but that's not the point. English heraldry is subtly different than German heraldry, etc.
Under English heraldry you put a colour against a metal, or a metal on a colour. You could get fancy and use the word "tincture" instead of colour, but again, whatever. The recognized "metals" in English heraldry were silver and gold, but never actually painted as silver or gold. What they used was white and yellow. That means colour against white or yellow, and white or yellow against colour. Never ever EVER put blue against red. Green against red is accepted in German heraldry, but not English. However blue against red? That will never be accepted by anyone. The reason is humans have red, green, and blue "cones" in the retina of our eyes. We have roughly equal number of red and green cones, but only 1/10 the number of blue cones. That is 10 times as many red as blue, and 10 times as many green as blue. That means we don't see blue with very good resolution. Yellow is a combination of red and green, so that uses both sets of cones that have high resolution. Blue against yellow really means yellow (high resolution) against not-yellow. That uses absence of nerve signals from red and green cones in the "blue" area to produce high resolution. But red against blue means just never signals from red against just nerve signals from blue. Again, blue has poor resolution, so that's bad. Red has good resolution, but now you see a blurry line on the blue side but sharp line on the red side. That conflict causes what looks like a moving jiggly line. That hurts your eyes.
White against yellow would the the worst of all. Yellow is red+green, white is all three colours. That provides full nerve signal from both red and green cones on both sides, with the only difference being signal from blue on the white side, no signal from blue on the yellow side. That provides a blurry line that you cannot see with any resolution.
Yes, human eyes have a lot of rods. They are for dim light. Rods detect all light of any colour. In fact rods can see ultraviolet (UV), but the lens in human eyes has a coating that filters out UV. You don't want sunburn on your retina. Rods are a lot larger than cones, contain a lot of the photodye called retinal. This dye literally burns off when exposed to bright light. When you acclimate or get used to dark, your rods fill with lots of retinal. If you're exposed to sudden bright light while your rods are filled with that much retinal, what you see will be bight, overexposed, washed out. And your eyes will feel like they're burning. Because the retinal is literally decomposing, in a sense your eyes are burning. Rods are big clumsy pixels, providing poor resolution, but they can see in varying light levels, and can see in very dim light. However, in daylight or bright office light, rods do not contribute significantly to your vision. Since rods respond equally to all colours of light, they give you monochromatic vision, sometimes called "black and white".
My point is the colours of your flag hurt our eyes.

Interesting that I didn't pick those colors, the Mars Society did I think, but they formed it into s simply tricolor flag like the flag of France or Germany. Interestingly Red, Green, and Blue are the standard colors on the computer monitor in which the computer makes all the other colors our eyes see.

This is the color chart I use to make my pictures using the Paint program, I made the chart myself so I can select precise colors rather than just approximate. All these colors are made with parts red, green, and blue, the first number is how much red is in the color, the second one is how much green, and the third is how much blue. For instance 550 makes yellow, which means 5 times 51 parts red, 5 times 51 parts green and no blue, that makes yellow.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-16 00:15:29

Terraformer wrote:

Talking about moving forward under the constraints of the Outer Space Treaty, perhaps the discussions around seasteading could help here. Namely, the use of flags of convenience, and the safety zones that are established around seagoing vessels (500m out from the vessels, I think). Assuming that the same laws which apply to the high seas are taken to apply to space - and in the absence of any agreement or ruling to the contrary, it's fair to assume this - there would be nothing stopping a government from setting up a "Space Colony Registry", whose job it is to oversee colonies that are registered under their flag. Indeed, they already do something like this for space launches, as required by international law, and America has already taken steps towards such a thing by agreeing to recognise the ownership of extraterrestrial resources that have been extracted (which really, I suppose, could be likened to fish caught in international waters...?).
So there's no need to claim sovereignty over the entire planet. If it wanted to, the United States could unilaterally set up a Colony Registry for Mars, and even suspend most American laws in the colonies such that they would be mainly self governing. Of course, it would probably be better if they entered into agreements with other countries to set up an international oversight organisation that would settle disputes and agree things like safety zones between colonies.

The UN does such a terrible job of keeping the peace, I'm not sure we want to replicate that on Mars. I don't want slavery on one part of Mars, and have women as second class citizens on another, and a dictator ruling a swath of Mars on a third part. I think one country or another should have Mars, and have an open immigration system for starters. The path of least resistance would seem to be rewarding Russia with Venus, the United States gets Mars, and Europe gets Titan, everyone else gets the asteroid belt. China seems to be interested in the Moon. One problem is we set up Nations on Mars, there are no oceans, meaning no International Waters!

JohnX · 2017-03-16 06:17:27

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

The UN does such a terrible job of keeping the peace, I'm not sure we want to replicate that on Mars. I don't want slavery on one part of Mars, and have women as second class citizens on another, and a dictator ruling a swath of Mars on a third part. I think one country or another should have Mars, and have an open immigration system for starters. The path of least resistance would seem to be rewarding Russia with Venus, the United States gets Mars, and Europe gets Titan, everyone else gets the asteroid belt. China seems to be interested in the Moon. One problem is we set up Nations on Mars, there are no oceans, meaning no International Waters!

You are joking, aren't you?

Look, we all know the USA is the current leader in space, and we were all inspired by Apollo and Voyager and Curiosity and a long list of others. But Mars belongs to humanity, if to anyone at all. Mars should be free and independent from the start, to prevent any of this squabbling. If Mars starts off American, how long will it be before they fight a War Of Independence?

This is a great paper on the subject - not that I agree 100% with all his ideas - https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1404/1404.2315.pdf

JohnX · 2017-03-16 08:21:25

How do I add an image to a post?

JohnX · 2017-03-16 08:23:17

I think I get it - I need to upload my image to a URL, then use [img](URL)[/img]

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-16 08:54:55

JohnX wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
The UN does such a terrible job of keeping the peace, I'm not sure we want to replicate that on Mars. I don't want slavery on one part of Mars, and have women as second class citizens on another, and a dictator ruling a swath of Mars on a third part. I think one country or another should have Mars, and have an open immigration system for starters. The path of least resistance would seem to be rewarding Russia with Venus, the United States gets Mars, and Europe gets Titan, everyone else gets the asteroid belt. China seems to be interested in the Moon. One problem is we set up Nations on Mars, there are no oceans, meaning no International Waters!
You are joking, aren't you?
Look, we all know the USA is the current leader in space, and we were all inspired by Apollo and Voyager and Curiosity and a long list of others. But Mars belongs to humanity, if to anyone at all. Mars should be free and independent from the start, to prevent any of this squabbling. If Mars starts off American, how long will it be before they fight a War Of Independence?
This is a great paper on the subject - not that I agree 100% with all his ideas - https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1404/1404.2315.pdf

Depends on whether we treat them as American citizens or as "Subjects of the Crown" as Great Britain did! The UK were fools to treat us as they did, they did not treat us as equals and so they lost us, it is as simple as that. The United States can learn from that. We have Hawaii after all, it is just one of the 50 states, and it is the only state that is not on the American Continent. If we can have one state, why not others? It would settle the matter of property rights and who's jurisdiction Mars falls under, and we would eliminate the possibility of border wars, just as Australia has done by owning the entire continent of Australia. Now do we want an Empire or a Republic? Well if we start off as a Republic, we won't have the problems the British Empire had with us! An what's wrong with dividing up the Solar System among the space powers? Why does Ethiopia or Somalia deserve a piece of the action at our expense? The United States and other space powers made the investments into space travel, Ethiopia did not, they were busy fighting among themselves or starving instead! We the investors should reap the benefit of our investments, I think we'll need lots of immigrants, but they should obey our laws! We are a successful country, I can't imagine giving Mars to Andorra or Luxemburg, tiny specs of nations that they are. I don't think the governments of tiny little countries are the best examples of how to govern an entire planet. If Britain wants to sponsor a state on Mars, then that's fine, but it would fall under the Martian planetary authority to keep the peace, the UK would have a legal contract with the state they sponsored, and would receive a portion of the local revenues of that state as a return on their investment under the laws of the planet.

The USA is the current leader of Space, do you think we would even be having this conversation if the current leader of Space was China for instance? I don't think so, I think the United States should be in charge of the operation since it has the largest space program and makes the largest investments in space travel, that is just logical, anyone else who wants and who is willing to make the investment should be allowed to participate and should be given representation under American law under this arrangement. It is important to have property rights after all, the UN is terrible at respecting property rights or even human rights.

Terraformer · 2017-03-16 09:12:16

So you agree that China should be given Mars, if they become the leaders in space?

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-16 09:43:59

No they would just take it without consulting us. Anyway the time is now, if you wait a century it will be too late! Germany missed out on the Age of Exploration in the New World, because it was too busy fighting with itself during the 30 years war between Catholics and Protestants! Later on when Germany was finally reunited, it started World War I and World War II because it wanted a piece of the colonial action that it felt it missed out on. Most of the colonial powers had it wrong they felt the regions were places to exploit rather than to expand into, Australia it turned out was not to be part of the UK proper but a colony instead, big mistake!

Scott Beach · 2017-03-16 09:50:35

Terraformer wrote:

So you agree that China should be given Mars, if they become the leaders in space?

Numerous nations have made overlapping claims of territorial sovereignty to portions of Antarctica. I therefore believe that a nation that is not a party to the Outer Space Treaty could claim a portion of Mars and could then issue Mars settlement permits.

Would the permit holders be able to raise money in international capital markets in order to pay for the construction of Mars settlements? For example, could they qualify to sell shares on the New York Stock Exchange?

Scott Beach · 2017-03-16 10:28:18

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

I can't imagine giving Mars to Andorra or Luxemburg, tiny specs of nations that they are. I don't think the governments of tiny little countries are the best examples of how to govern an entire planet.

In my proposal that the Principality of Andorra issue Mars Settlement Permits I did not include the requirement that such permits prescribe that each settlement shall have a democratic or a totalitarian or a republican form of government, or that settlements organize states or nations. These matters are appropriately left to the discretion of the Martians.

JohnX · 2017-03-16 10:31:07

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

No they would just take it without consulting us.

Nobody's disputing that the US is the leader in space exploration and could do what it wanted. But I don't think even your own government would agree with snatching Mars, claiming sovereignty over it, without consulting rest-of-world.
The US stands to gain hugely anyway from its investments in space, just by going and building. You're welcome to plan your USA-Mars concepts but don't expect the rest of us to join in. Global cooperation looks like a saner option.

Last edited by JohnX (2017-03-16 10:31:47)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2017-03-15 03:52:46

Re: Mapping a way forward

#52 2017-03-15 05:50:54

Re: Mapping a way forward

#53 2017-03-15 10:01:03

Re: Mapping a way forward

#54 2017-03-15 10:22:11

Re: Mapping a way forward

#55 2017-03-15 10:53:05

Re: Mapping a way forward

#56 2017-03-15 11:23:46

Re: Mapping a way forward

#57 2017-03-15 11:24:32

Re: Mapping a way forward

#58 2017-03-15 11:40:08

Re: Mapping a way forward

#59 2017-03-15 11:43:16

Re: Mapping a way forward

#60 2017-03-15 12:11:41

Re: Mapping a way forward

#61 2017-03-15 12:25:22

Re: Mapping a way forward

#62 2017-03-15 13:08:17

Re: Mapping a way forward

#63 2017-03-15 17:21:18

Re: Mapping a way forward

#64 2017-03-15 18:35:38

Re: Mapping a way forward

#65 2017-03-16 00:06:57

Re: Mapping a way forward

#66 2017-03-16 00:15:29

Re: Mapping a way forward

#67 2017-03-16 06:17:27

Re: Mapping a way forward

#68 2017-03-16 08:21:25

Re: Mapping a way forward

#69 2017-03-16 08:23:17

Re: Mapping a way forward

#70 2017-03-16 08:54:55

Re: Mapping a way forward

#71 2017-03-16 09:12:16

Re: Mapping a way forward

#72 2017-03-16 09:43:59

Re: Mapping a way forward

#73 2017-03-16 09:50:35

Re: Mapping a way forward

#74 2017-03-16 10:28:18

Re: Mapping a way forward

#75 2017-03-16 10:31:07

Re: Mapping a way forward

Board footer