You are not logged in.
BEYOND BINARIES: TECHNOCRACY, POPULISM AND PUBLIC POLICY
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals … B0AB96CCFD
The Psychology of Totalitarianism: Technocracy’s ‘Science Of Social Engineering’
https://www.technocracy.news/the-psycho … gineering/
Here’s how government will work on Mars, according to Elon Musk
https://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11852148
Offline
Like button can go here
The space economy grew at fastest rate in years to $469 billion in 2021
Offline
Like button can go here
The replicants are coming?
In the fictional Blade Runner movie universe, Blade Runner based on 'Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep' by Philip K. Dick the replicant was a genetically engineered, bio-enhanced person with para-physical capabilities, "composed entirely of organic substance," created for slave labor by Tyrell Corporation and its successor, the Wallace Corporation. The Tyrell motto was "More human than human." In areas of discrimination the Replicants were sometimes referred to as "skinjobs" or "skinners," as they were indistinguishable from non-engineered humans, except for their empathetic abilities, these terms were considered slurs. Throughout the existence of replicants, various movements for and against their freedom were formed. In other universe like StarTrek and Sony Xbox video games they also explored the idea of a Replicant not a Clone but a modified biological duplicate of a person which was later enhanced or changed to fill a role.
News
Engineers at MIT Fabricate a Chip-less, Wireless Electronic Skin That Senses and Transmits Signals
https://www.techeblog.com/engineer-mit- … onic-skin/
Offline
Like button can go here
Since Trump is turning the US into a dictatorship, perhaps it's time to raise this thread again. Do I need to summarize, or would the initial post do?
Offline
Like button can go here
I read an interesting analysis yesterday, that the direction the US is headed may be toward a family operation, similar to what exists in North Korea. That has a long history on Earth. As I understand it, there are subtle differences between family operations and dictatorships, but for the people who have to live in them, there don't appear to be a lot of differences.
If violence is how the government maintains power, how would a corporate form differ from a dictatorship?
As I observe corporate governance, the stock holders vote on issues, and the major stockholders vote with the management. so issues raised by dissident stock holders are voted down. The issues raised by the dissidents are at least given a moment of airing. In a dictatorship they don't even get that.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
The issues I want to address are how to pay for settlement of Mars, and how to prevent war. My vision is the federal government has jurisdiction over all of Mars, the planet will not be divided between separate countries. However, the federal government I would be minimal. Basically city states. No states in the sense of USA, no provinces, no counties, no other subsoverign levels of government. Only the federal government is allowed a military. Cities will have police, but city police only have jurisdiction within city limits. City police are not allowed to possess weapons of war, so no backdoor military. No tanks, no artillery, no fighter jets, no mortars, no land mines, no nuclear weapons, no fully automatic firearms, no armed drones. No bump stocks, a backdoor machine gun. Whether civilians are allowed to possess weapons and which is up to cities. If someone purchases land from a city, that land is under jurisdiction of that city. But if an individual purchases land directly from the federal government, then they're allowed all the same weapons as city police. Basically, every weapon a civilian is allowed in the US right now, except a bump stock.
Mars does not have wildlife, so you can't use the word "wilderness". I use the Australian word "outback". A homestead in the outback would only be subject to federal laws, nothing else. And cities would not be allowed to expropriate such homesteads.
Federal government would "collect" some money from large corporations, but no tax on small or medium size corporations. Federal government would also sell land: a village of 100 people would only get as much land as a village of that population, and would have to pay an appropriate fee for that much land. A town of 1,000 would get as much land as a town of that size. A city of 10,000 would get as much land as a city of that size. And a metropolis of 1 million people would get appropriate land for that population. Each would be charged an appropriate fee for land. No backdoor way of taking as much land as a county or state. And when a town grows to become a city, it cannot expropriate land from a homestead that may be just outside its boundaries. The town cannot surround a homestead either, a pathway must be maintained from a homestead to the outback.
Definition of a large corporation, I'm thinking of the US definition: 1,000 employees or more. Not the Canadian definition, which is significantly smaller. With automation, total income may have to be taken into account.
No other federal taxes: no income tax, no sales tax, no duties/customs/tariffs, no social security, no medicare tax, no luxury tax, no other federal taxes whatsoever. If cities want to charge property tax or school tax, or any other tax, that's up to them. So a homestead in the outback has no tax whatsoever.
Cottage industry would be very much encouraged. If someone running a small business in his/her homestead can out-compete the Corporation at something, that's good. The founding Corporation will get most of its profit from transporting settlers from Earth to Mars. Oh! We didn't tell you? The small print of your ticket to Mars gives the Corporation the right to use your name/image/story for advertising back on Earth. So if you establish a successful business out of your homestead, you will literally be the poster boy for recruitment of new settlers from Earth.
Federal laws will be: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal. Other than that, you're pretty much on your own, dude. Of course once lawyers get involved it gets more complicated: murder, assault & battery, assault with a deadly weapon, theft, robbery, extextortion, embezzlement, etc. An owner of a homestead would have the right to defend his property from trespassers, and protect his land from miners (stealing minerals, etc).
No federal laws about marriage. So polygamy would be allowed. No federal laws about age of consent. Rape is assault, so illegal, but at what age is an individual allowed to engage in consensual sex? In Canada the age was 14 until 2006, when it was increased to 16. In the UK it's 16. In many states of the US it's 16, others 18. The Jewish bar mitzvah/bat mitzvah at 13 or Latin quinceañera at 15 is a celebration of coming of age; basically start of adulthood. For Jews, the individual is not expected to be fully adult on their 13th birthday, but will be expected to learn quickly how to be an adult. Because there's so much cultural variability, I would not impose any federal laws regarding this. City states could impose laws, but again a homestead in the outback will not be under jurisdiction of any city.
The founding Corporation will build a single city on Mars. All new arrivals will arrive there. The space terminal will have multiple posters to recruit new arrivals toto work for the Corporation. Initially city police for the capital city will double as federal police, but only federal laws apply outside city boundaries.
No driver license required, but cities could require a driver's license within their limits. After all, buildings will be pressurized, so crashing into a building could puncture/rupture the pressure seal. No federal laws about drinking and driving, but realize there is no AAA on Mars so if you crash your rover in a crater, no one will rescue you. Does your spacesuit have enough oxygen to walk back home?
No federal laws regarding drugs. If you want a prescription drug without a written prescription by a licensed doctor, go ahead. If you want to take recreational drugs, a city may restrict it, but no federal laws. Also realize an employer could fire you without notice for coming into work drunk or high.
Little to no environmental restrictions. If a company dumps toxic waste in a crater, the frozen ground means it won't go anywhere. No aquifer to contaminate. Atmosphere on Mars already is mostly CO2 with some carbon monoxide.
The down side of all this is healthcare will have to be entirely private, as it is in the US right now. I live in Canada, our healthcare system has issues but it's a lot better than nothing. But on Mars, with no tax, healthcare will have to be private.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2025-04-12 16:26:43)
Offline
Like button can go here
At the last Mars Society Convention, I gave a presentation about this. One individual said that I want to be the UN. Because Mars would be city states, and the main role of the federal government that I proposed is to prevent war. But it's not, the UN has a lot of bureaucracy but very little authority. The UN doesn't have a military of its own. What I propose is a federal government. One person on New Mars claimed it's a unitary government because there are no states or provinces, but there's a division of authority between two levels of government which is the definition of a federation. There are no regional governments, so you could argue whether it's technically a federation. Is it a confederation? Words don't matter, division of authority does.
In this system only the federal government is allowed a military, and that military uses force if necessary to ensure no one else has a military, and no cities go to war. During the American war of Independence, two corporations in Canada went to war with eachother: the Hudson's Bay company, and the Northwest company. After American independence, the British military had to put and end to the corporate war. So one responsibility of the Mars military is to ensure corporations don't go to war either. Of course there is also defence: ensuring no Earth nation tries to establish authority on Mars.
The federal government will also allocate land. Once a large chunk of land is allocated to a city, how the city uses that land is up to the city. But the federal authority (land titles office or whatever name) will ensure two cities don't try to claim the same land, and ensure a city cannot claim land owned by a homestead.
Flying a rocket the size of Starship will require the rocket be in good shape and the pilot is qualified. If that were to crash it could do real damage. But as I said above: driver license for a Mars rover or ground vehicle the size of a car or even the size of a semi-truck... shmeh!
The goal is to keep the federal government out of the way.
Offline
Like button can go here
Looking back at this, I realize people could misunderstand one point. I do not condone adultery. Adultery is a crime. A crime of violence. The spouse cheated upon is the victim, and has a right to defend his/her marriage. But I want Mars to be a planet of city-states, where that sort of thing is ruled by city-states. I was just browsing YouTube and stumbled upon a video that was all audio, just a static text wall. A husband bought an anniversary gift for his wife, and returned home early. He found his wife's car in the driveway. When he went upstairs, he found his wife fucking another man. Gleeful. I had to stop, it made me so angry. Reminded me of another video where the husband returned home, again found a man fucking his wife in his home, in his bed. The husband threw the other man off the wife, creating a large dent in the wall. The other man attacked the husband. Result was a fist fight. The adulterer was had his skull fractured, his face beaten in. I could go on, but that is the correct and appropriate response to adultery. Courts did not rule in favour of the husband. I think they were wrong.
But again, on Mars this should be a city-state issue, not a federal issue. Robert Zubrin wants Mars to be a planet where different government forms can be tried, experimented, and the best will win out. That is what I want. That is why I believe the federal government of Mars should not get involved in marriage. After all, there would be a strong temptation to duplicate all the problems that currently exist in western society.
Offline
Like button can go here
For RobertDyck....
A corporation has a board of directors.
In your vision, who would sit on that board?
How would they choose the officers of the corporation?
What criteria would they use to seek candidates?
What qualities of character would they seek?
In any group, trust is of greater importance than any other measurable quantity.
Trust is earned over time.
There are individual humans who have learned how to fool others into extending trust.
Your post #283 hints at betrayal of trust.
How does your vision for a corporate structure improve upon the basic principle that humans need to trust each other in order to conduct business or to cooperate in other ways?
It seems to me that if humans cannot trust each other to keep their word, success at a group level is unlikely.
Trust extends to production of goods and services. A successful community will exhibit high levels of trust, and correspondingly trustworthy behavior. Ignorance or sloth can lead to unsafe products, so mechanisms are needed to guard against these, but these problems are not the same as lack of trust.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
Tom, you obsess over the "corporate" part. I tried to emphasize Mars as a planet of city-states. Post #281 stated this government structure has two primary goals: to prevent war, and to pay for settlement. The "pay for" part has to be done. Without a way to make it profitable, there will never be settlement of Mars.
I posted elsewhere the story of the city of Saint John's, Newfoundland. That city was founded by fishermen in 1497. Christopher Columbus, an Italian explorer, was funded by Queen Isabella of Spain. He discovered the Caribbean in 1492. Because he was funded by Spain, the colonies brought a lot of riches to Spain. John Cabot proposed to the British government that he cross the Atlantic, find what he could. He did, and discovered Newfoundland and the Grand Banks in 1496. He documented a bay that could be used as a natural harbour, and called it Saint John's Bay. English fishermen sailed later in 1496, harvested fish (mostly cod), and established a fishing camp to processes fish on the shores of Saint John's Bay. The first house was built in the summer of 1497, for a caretaker to stay over winter and protect the camp. That camp grew to become a town, then a city. Saint John's did not receive any government funding, it was established by businessmen (fishermen). It was built long before Jamestown, long before Roanoak, long before many failed government colonies. Saint John's was a success because it was built by businessmen who did not count on government funding, or food from Europe. Government colonies failed because supply ships were always delayed by months while politicians haggled whether the colony was a good use of taxpayer's money. You can't leave people waiting for months for food to arrive, they starved to death. But the fishermen just ate some of the fish they caught. They brought tools and harvested trees from Newfoundland for wood to build their camp, then their town. To use generic terms that apply to Mars, they established food production right away, starting the first year with the first settlement, and they built their settlement with in-situ resources. Saint John's had the first European house since the Vikings of Vinland, and they built the first European street in the New World. Water Street was built many years before Jamestown was built, and Water Street still exists today, it's still an operating street. Saint John's is now the capital city of the Canadian province of Newfoundland.
For a settlement on Mars to work, we need profitable private business. How can you make profit from Mars? Transportation cost is so high that bringing any resources back to Earth would be prohibitively expensive. So I proposed that you don't. The company will make its profit by carrying settlers one-way to Mars. Mars must be a destination people want to go to. The attraction of Mars is no government. You can tell government to shove it where the sun don't shine! Cost for a ticket to Mars will be the entire life savings for a typical professional. That gives you a cabin in the Large Ship. A tradesman could get a bunk in an economy class cabin, equivalent to "third class" on the Titanic. A more successful professional with a spouse and children could sell his/her house in the suburbs, sell any cars, liquidate retirement savings and life insurance, and get a whole cabin for his/her spouse and children, but it's still just an economy class cabin. For this to work, the Corporation operating the ship must do so at a profit. Yes, I know, some people are allergic to the word "profit". But not profit, no Mars. Government will never establish a colony on Mars. NASA is not designed to build a colony, will never do so. And even if some US President were to restructure NASA to try to build a colony, it would die when supplies were delayed by months or years. Remember Mars aligns with Earth every 26 months, so a delay of too many months will miss the launch opportunity. If a supply shipment is delayed for 2 years, for a settlement that is dependent on supplies for food and life support, then settlers on Mars will die. It happened with Roanoke, Ajacan, Fort Caroline, Sable Island, Charlesfort, Pensacola, San Miguel de Gualdape, Charlesbourg-Royal, and France-Roy. A hurricane destroyed Pensacola, relief didn't arrive in time. The other settlements were destroyed by freezing winters and scurvy, or just simply starving to death from late delivery of food. If government tries to establish a colony on Mars, the same will happen again.
My proposal is the Corporation that owns the Large Ship will establish a single city on Mars. All settlers carried by the Large Ship will arrive their. The city established by the Corporation will mine Mars, produce propellant, food, and supplies for the Large Ship. That Mars city will also manufacture parts for maintenance, repairs, and upgrades to the Large Ship. That city will require workers. That Corporation will operate the city, but also establish the federal government of Mars. The Corporation will fund the federal government, but don't expect the federal government itself to be profitable. The Corporation will operate the Large Ship at profit. The city on Mars will provide everything required to operate the Large Ship, including propellant required to fill depot in Earth orbit. Expect the Moons of Mars to have ice, which can be mined and shipped back to Earth to supply that depot. It will be expensive to build the large ship, the propellant production facility on a Mars moon, and the initial settlement on Mars. But once operating, all operational expenses will come from Mars, but settlers pay with Earth currency (US dollars, European Euros, etc). The Corporation will have to recover its initial investment, but once that is done, the Large Ship will be pure profit.
Again, for anyone allergic to profit: no profit, no Mars.
For this to work, Mars must be a desirable place to go. Again, go build a homestead in the outback and tell government to shove it!!! No tax whatsoever. Of course you have to build a homestead with life support, because Mars doesn't have a breathable atmosphere. But live off the land, no government, no rules, minimal laws. Groups who want to establish a new community could build a village or town or city on Mars, run it their way. This would be a city-state, with all the authority of a US state. In fact more authority than a state, because the federal government of Mars would have even less authority than the US federal government.
Roles of the Mars federal government:
no war. Anyone who tries to start a war will be stopped by the military of the federal government, and political leaders who started that war will be arrested for mass murder
no weapons of war. Anyone who tries to own military weaponry will have said weapons seized. A city-state can have a police force, but not a military. Trained military personnel other than the federal military will be arrested.
land allocation. If you want a piece of land, you have to buy it from the land titles office (or other name) of the federal government. This will resolve disputes over who owns what. If someone tries to claim enough land for an entire county or something the size of a US state, the federal government of Mars will say no. Anyone can harvest resources from any land not owned, but that's risky because once someone buys that land, no one else can harvest resources there.
regulation of rockets. You don't want a used SpaceX Starship with improper maintenance falling on your house.
murder will be a federal offence. Theft/robbery will be a federal offence. This means grabbing people who are driving by in the outback and capturing them as slaves won't work. That would be assault, probably with a deadly weapon.
That's pretty much it. Not much role for the federal government on Mars. So obsessing over how the federal government of Mars selects its leadership is not so relevant. The Corporation that builds and operates the Large Ship will establish the federal government, and the Corporation will have to fund the federal government. The federal government will get its money from that Corporation, plus sale of land. That's it. No taxes for small or medium size business. No taxes for individuals. If another corporation grows to the size of a large corporation, it will have to pay something to the federal government as well. Again, I'm using the US definition of a large corporation: 1,000 employees or more. No, that will not give the other corporation a say in how the federal government is run.
The city established by the Corporation will be the capital. That city will establish a bank with electronic funds processing: debit cards. That currency could become the planetary currency. If someone wants to establish an alternate currency, go ahead. I don't see this as a federal thing, just something established in the capital city that will be used because initially it will be the only bank on the planet. Currency you can hold in your hand is a good thing. I am thinking of coins made of real precious metals. Ancient Rome had a denarius, about the size of a dime, made of sterling silver (95% to 98% silver). Silver must be alloyed because pure silver is so soft you can bend it with your fingers. In the US and Canada over a century ago, pennies were made of solid copper, nickels were made of nickel, dimes and quarters were sterling silver. I'm thinking of that, plus sterling silver dollars, and high denominations made of gold or platinum. Basing currency on something physical helps prevent inflation.
Again, if you want to obsess over structure of government, you should focus on a city-state. The federal government of Mars must be minimal, and just stay out of your way. And the Corporation must be set up in such a way that it can make a profit, or Mars just won't happen.
Offline
Like button can go here
RobertDyck,
After all, there would be a strong temptation to duplicate all the problems that currently exist in western society.
What are the problems that currently exist in western society, as you see it (as of right now, not 10 or 20 years ago)?
Who or what, or what events and activities, caused those problems?
How does a federal government that doesn't enforce minimum standards for the age of marriage, for example, remedy those problems?
If you moved from one area of Mars where the age of consent / marriage is 16, to another where the age of consent / marriage is set at 18, how does that serve to reduce the litigiousness of modern western society?
That seems like a system in which marriage can be redefined by local governments to mean whatever they want it to mean. If marriage is not defined at the federal level, then you have no guaranteed equal protection under the law the moment you move between local jurisdictions.
Should the government, local or federal, involve itself in marriage at all?
That's a different question than age of consent in a sexual relationship. I'd like to point out that distinction. If the federal government says the legal age of consent is 18, then it's not telling anyone who can get married, only whether or not someone is considered a minor child who should not be in a sexual relationship, because they cannot be held legally responsible for their actions, rather than an adult who can legally be involved in a sexual relationship.
At what age should someone be held legally responsible for their own actions, and to what extent?
That seems to be the crux of the matter.
Both western and eastern societies seem to set different ages for different activities.
Age of consent seems to vary from is as low as 12 in Cuba, to as high as 21 in Bahrain. Beyond that, many countries distinguish between two minors engaging in a sexual relationship vs a minor and an adult by legal definition. Some countries tie the age of consent to marriage, while others do not. A few countries have different rules for homosexual relationships vs heterosexual relationships. All in all, it's a very "mixed bag" regarding what people consider acceptable or normative.
Offline
Like button can go here
What are the problems that currently exist in western society, as you see it (as of right now, not 10 or 20 years ago)?
One problem is war. If Mars were to be divided into multiple countries, there would be war. Period. Full stop. No question, no debate. Politicians who gain power, want more power. And their jealous of other politicians having power. Wars between nations have existed since the invention of writing, and probably before. Long before. The UN was created to stop war, but it doesn't have a military. It's a giant debate club, where national governments can debate issues, but seldom agree on anything. There's a war right now in Ukraine, Russia wants to annex all of Ukraine. Telling them to stop fighting because they should, or because people are dying, isn't going to do jack shit! The UN hasn't been able to do anything about it.
I don't want to debate culture. You're a Trump supporter, and Trump people are a cult. There were a lot of real issues that some of us believed Trump could solve, but Trump's core supporters treat everything he does as if it's gospel from the great god of MAGA. We obviously can't allow that government to rule Mars. If MAGA people want to establish a town, fine, but not all of Mars.
One practical issue is birth rate. It has fallen below sustainability in absolutely every developed nation. This cannot continue. The population of the USA is aging more gradually than most developed nations, but it's occurring there too. Immigration is a temporary fix. But I don't want to get into details here. The point is for Mars to be a place where different ideas can be tried. Experimentation to see what works, and what doesn't.
Offline
Like button can go here
RobertDyck,
Wars between nations have existed since the invention of writing, and probably before. Long before.
By your own admission, war is not a nation-state or political problem, it's part of human nature, and existed long before writing was invented, and the entire nation-state or "country" concept.
Telling them to stop fighting because they should, or because people are dying, isn't going to do jack shit!
That would be why President Trump decided to stop funding their war. Ukraine is never going to recapture their territory unless we personally get involved, which we're not going to do, because the probability of escalation to a nuclear war is very high. We would rather both parties negotiate a cease fire that they both find acceptable, and have made every effort in good faith towards that goal. Maybe Putin or Zelensky or both are not sincere in wanting to stop their war, but we cannot know that with certainty if we do not try.
I don't want to debate culture. You're a Trump supporter, and Trump people are a cult.
Projection, gaslighting, name-calling, and cry-bullying only works on your fellow leftists. You should know that by now. It's no longer working on a growing number of them, either. People such as myself only find that behavior obnoxious and rude. You don't achieve peace or civility by being obnoxious and rude. You will live in a society where not everyone agrees on the best path forward. That is natural. There are very few situations or circumstances with desirable outcomes where we'd expect to see complete or near-complete agreement if everyone is going through their own rationalization process.
The people you're accusing of being cult members are the ones who are trying to put an end to the war in Ukraine. The people you identify with politically are trying to perpetuate the war.
Liberals such as yourself need not concern themselves with being logically consistent, which is why you can make such blatantly contradictory statements as "I don't want war" and "we need to keep fighting the Russians forever". You either don't mean what you say, or you cannot articulate what you actually mean because your emotions are getting the better of you.
The TV channels you choose to listen to told you it's our job to hate and fight the Russians. They did not tell you that Ukraine was lobbing artillery shells at ethnic Russians who happened to live in Ukraine since 2014, that we helped overthrow their duly elected President because he was an ethnic Russian and wanted more favorable trade arrangements with the Russians, and that we promised to not expand NATO eastward.
If you were merely a curious onlooker watching some fighting unfold in front of you, and your political beliefs were not threatened by who won or lost, then you might ask yourself who started what, why, and when. The issue is that you're not very curious. You've decided ahead of time what to believe, who or what you support, and will religiously ignore anything that disagrees with your beliefs, to the point of self-destruction.
We obviously can't allow that government to rule Mars.
Whatever would future Martians do without liberals starting or perpetuating pointless wars while falsely claiming to be anti-war?
The point is for Mars to be a place where different ideas can be tried. Experimentation to see what works, and what doesn't.
The Ukraine War is a liberal experiment implementing the tenets of your ideology.
How has that war helped Ukraine's birth rate?
But I don't want to get into details here.
If we got into details here, we'd find that I raised two sons and a daughter. You have no children, which you can blame on anyone or anything, but ultimately the only person at fault for that is staring back at you in the mirror. Anyone who is involved in governance should be asking themselves the kinds of questions that you clearly don't ask of yourself, because you don't want to confront the answers. For starters, war is a lot like poverty or "the poor". War will always be with us. We can choose to let it get the better of us, or we can go a different direction when its irrationality becomes too painful to ignore. Some of us have a higher pain tolerance than others, but everyone has a breaking point.
Offline
Like button can go here
kbd512,
Helping Russia, allowing Russia to keep any portion of Ukraine is the greatest way to cause nuclear war. You aren't preventing nuclear war, you're causing it. Putin has said he doesn't consider Ukraine to be a country, he intends to annex all of it. He will then force-recruit Ukrainian civilians to fight in the Russian army against their next target. They force-recruited Ukrainian civilians in the occupied territories before the full-scale invasion of February 2022, they'll do it again. Putin has said he intends to conquer and annex all of Ukraine, Moldova, a narrow strip of Romania between Moldova and the Carpathian mountains. All of Poland, all of Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia, all of Finland. Russians are now talking of taking East Germany including Berlin. They also want Alaska. If Russia takes all that easily, they'll take the rest of Europe; all the way to the Straight of Gibraltar. Europe won't sit buy and allow that. Once any member of NATO is invaded, European members of NATO will declare war and fight to defend their ally. That means all-out war between NATO and Russia, even if the US is not involved. Once NATO troops are on Russian soil, will Russia use a nuke? If Russia does, UK and France will use theirs.
Surrendering Ukraine will not stop nuclear war; it will cause it. You want an example from history? Putin is the modern version of Adolf Hitler. Ironic that Putin accuses Ukraine of being Nazi when he basically is Hitler. Europe stood down and allowed Nazis to take Czechoslovakia. Nazis used Czech tanks, Czech military industry to make new weapons, force-drafted Czech civilians into the Nazi army, then invaded Poland. Ironic that Russia will likely invade Poland next. Whether Poland is next or the Baltic states doesn't matter, because whichever is first, the other is next. Appeasement didn't work with Hitler in 1938, it won't work with Putin now. Arguing for the Russian side means you are trying to start World War 3!
Maybe Putin or Zelensky or both are not sincere in wanting to stop their war, but we cannot know that with certainty if we do not try.
Zelenskyy offered an unconditional ceasefire across all battle lines. He made that offer a month ago, but Russia refused to accept.
Edit: Discussion of the Ukraine war should be restricted to the Politics thread. Let's keep this about government on Mars.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2025-04-14 16:33:04)
Offline
Like button can go here
By your own admission, war is not a nation-state or political problem, it's part of human nature, and existed long before writing was invented, and the entire nation-state or "country" concept.
Has Texas gone to war with California? Like I said, I am not proposing a UN for Mars. I am proposing something much more. A federal government on Mars, with city-states. The city-states not allowed to posses a military or go to war with each other. And the federal government would posses the only military on the planet to enforce that.
Offline
Like button can go here
RobertDyck,
Has Texas gone to war with California?
California fought for the Union and Texas fought for the Confederacy during the American Civil War. If that was the example you wished to use to show us how well your federal system would work to prevent war, then that's an automatic fail.
Anybody who has machine tools and chemicals can make weapons. To merely survive on Mars, all the same tech that will be required for civil purposes could just as easily be repurposed for war. Many technologies are what we term "dual use". A fertilizer plant is literally the exact same technology used to make explosives. Precise machining of metal tubes for heat exchangers or plumbing is very close to the tech used to make gun barrels.
Beyond that, the point you keep deliberately ignoring is that "the enemy gets a vote". You still act as if they're supposed to simply accept whatever it is you do, roll over, and play dead. That doesn't happen in real life. People do things you won't approve of. How over-the-top your reaction is, typically tells them how justified or unjustified they were in thinking that you were some sort of controlling despot.
I know of only one foolproof method to prevent war. Men of good moral character and conscience, as well as kindness towards others, are elected or appointed to positions of power. That means men who think logically, are not overly-emotional in their reactions to things they don't like, or prone to stigmatizing viewpoints that disagree with their own, to the point that they stop considering information that disagrees with whatever is going on inside their heads.
Do you know what I see "missing" from much of the leadership in the world today?
Many of those who are elected or appointed do not seem to give a tinker's damn about their own people. They literally thumb their noses at the plight of their people because they have gained wealth, power, and privilege, by whatever method, so they seem to hold the view that everyone else no longer matters.
If I was the Chairman of the Communist Party, someone who survived the various purges, plagues, and mass starvation by some minor miracle, the very last thing in the world I would want to subject my people to is any more of that. And yet... The people in positions of power like Chairman Xi and President Putin are either so ideologically blinded or so fixated on what they want, that they're going to perpetuate the system that took the people from them that they cared most about in this world, as well as their prosperity. I can't think of anything more self-defeating than that.
Any system of governance that requires you to denounce your own family members in public, merely for reading the wrong book, is rotten to its core. That would be why we still have wars over ideology. They're not going to go away unless we're no longer human.
Offline
Like button can go here
I am neither left-wing nor MAGA. I am libertarian. Many Liberals have accused me of being Conservative. One of the things I've been saying in Canada lately, is if the Liberal Party wants to remain relevant, they have to flush out the extreme radical left-wing faction. The Party used to be moderate, centrist, fiscally responsible. Even former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has said publicly that the party needs to return to the centre. Canada is in the midst of a federal election. I have helped the Conservative candidate in my electoral district. I do not believe the Liberal Party is able to make the changes necessary to regain the trust of Canadian voters; not unless they lose. They need a resounding election loss.
But this is one of the problems with MAGA. They don't want to listen to anyone who says anything different. And if you support Russia, you support war. The Russian people are good people; at least the few I've met. The problem is their government is a dictatorship. Russian rulers who don't give a damn about their people, are trying to conquer other countries so they can take their resources. Neither Putin nor the Russian government gives a damn about how many of their own people die in the war.
Europe was able to achieve peace because they had to. The two world wars were devastating. But you keep advocating in favour of war. If Mars is separated into multiple countries, there WILL be war. We cannot have war on a planet without a breathable atmosphere.
But your argument is called a "strawman". You create a problem that doesn't exist, then argue against your own problem. I proposed a federal system without regulation, just a means to peacefully allocate land, and no war. Other than that, you're on your own. And you claim that government is trying to micromanage your every thought.
Offline
Like button can go here
RobertDyck,
We've been listening to the neolibs and neocons for the past 25 years. All it's brought to us thus far is endless war, economic decay, and further impoverishment of the middle class. If that was their entire plan, then we need a better plan, which they failed to deliver. President Trump at least has economic plans and deals that he's trying to pursue while "the system" tries to maintain the status quo bankrupting America. Whether or not I agree with 100% of everything he does is irrelevant to the fact that I'm finally getting something besides more of the same trash policies that are tantamount to economic suicide.
I don't have any issues with the Russian or Ukrainian people. None. I think they should both be allowed to live in peace, without the incessant meddling of the neolibs and neocons from the west. As near as I can tell, we kept poking at them until we fomented a war, so now they're at war. I would greatly prefer that we quit doing that.
I voted for the only guy who publicly stated that he was going to negotiate an end to the endless wars, but I'm advocating for war. Gotcha.
But your argument is called a "strawman". You create a problem that doesn't exist, then argue against your own problem.
Let's say that China follows through with their publicly stated plan and sends people to Mars, with the intent to mine resources and colonize Mars. Let's further stipulate that they decide they're not signing on to this "One Mars Government" that the rest of us set up on Mars.
If we attempt to impose your "no military weapons" policy on the Chinese, what do you imagine their response will be?
If you said "a war", then you'd be correct. Your government will make a demand they refuse to acquiesce to and then your options are to talk endlessly while accomplishing nothing, which is what the UN does, or to use military force, at which time they will respond in kind, and when last I checked we call that state of affairs a war.
Since that very specific problem clearly does exist right here on Earth, why do you suppose it won't follow humanity to Mars?
We cut off all military weapons to Iran. Whatever that was supposed to accomplish, the end result was that Iran made their own weapons. Russia and China have supplied some older SAM batteries and ancient fighter jets, yet the thousands of offensive combat drones and cruise or ballistic missiles that the Iranians have manufactured and supplied to their various terrorist networks are entirely home-grown weapons projects. All the economic sanctions and sporadic military operations haven't deterred them from arming themselves. Since Iran's manufacturing base is entirely domestic, there's nothing effective we can do to stop them, short of engaging in a war.
What is your government's course of action, which does not lead to a war, if the Chinese decide they absolutely are putting colonies on Mars, and absolutely refuse to submit to the authority of your One Mars Government?
Offline
Like button can go here
We've been listening to the neolibs and neocons for the past 25 years. All it's brought to us thus far is endless war, economic decay, and further impoverishment of the middle class.
Meanwhile George W. Bush invaded Iraq when there was no reason. Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11, and they were in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with it.
I'm not neolib, I'm not neocon. I'm libertarian. That means let people live their lives, but the hell out! But it also means moderation. I'm sure some corporate executives would like to use the excuse "It's my business, but the hell out." That includes corporations that own hospitals, double charging medical insurance for procedures. It includes increasing the cost of an insulin auto-injector by 5,000%. It includes withholding necessary medical procedures in order to extort excessive corporate profits. Canada's medical system isn't perfect, but it's better than the US. Here in this province, Manitoba, Gary Doer was elected Premier in 1999. He created "regional health authorities". Government already had a Minister of Health and the ministerial office staff. Every hospital already had administration. Why do we need a 3rd level of bureaucracy? The excuse was pooling purchase for supplies would allow a region to bulk purchase, giving them clout with suppliers to drive the price down. The problem is they didn't just do that, they because a bureaucracy, and cost much more than they saved. Greg Selinger was elected Premier in 2011, and was extreme left-wing, increasing sales tax. Brian Pallister was elected Premier in 2016; he rolled-back sales tax, and promised to reduce bureaucracy. He promised he would fire bureaucrats, but would not touch front-line medical workers. At first he did as he promised, but that didn't last long. Bureaucrat middle-managers were desperate to save their jobs. So nurses were fired, and entire emergency wards closed. He did that in the spring of 2019, just before COVID hit. Government is still struggling to hire doctors and nurses. The people who were fired, found work elsewhere; they won't come back. This is an example: an extreme application of libertarian principles would allow corporate executives to extort as much money as they want from people who are literally dying. That is not ethical. And that's why I am moderate.
As for Russia, you are not arguing against war, you're arguing for it. Russia conquered Ukraine in the 1700s, kicked citizens out of their homes, out of their farms, out of their places of business. They brought in Russian immigrants to ensure Ukrainians didn't move back into their own homes. Despite this, a census by Russia in 1890 showed the majority of people in Ukraine still spoke the Ukrainian language. This not only included east Ukraine, but all of what was Ukraine before Russia invaded. That includes Rostov-on-Don, the entire coast of the Azov Sea, the entire Russian coast of the Black Sea. But Russia practised genocide, to wipe out Ukrainians, either convert them to Russian, or kill them off and bring in Russians. The Communist Revolution broke up the Russian Empire, Ukraine was free. The Ukrainian People's Republic existed from December 1917 to January 1922. It included all that land that used to be Ukraine. The Soviet Union invaded, and conquered them again. From 1932-'33, the Russian army stole food from Ukraine. Although Ukraine produced a surplus, there wasn't enough left for the Ukrainian people. Before the Soviet Union collapsed, the belief was 10 million died in Holodomor. After the Soviet Union broke up, records were available showing 30 million died. Now Putin claims "only" 7 million died. That's still millions. The Ukrainian people will never let Russia rule them again. Putin stated his intent to invade and annex everything that used to be part of or controlled by the Soviet Union, and everything that used to be part of the Russian Empire before it. The war will not stop with Ukraine. Putin is trying to start World War 3. Official records said 55 million died in WW2, including both soldiers and civilians on both sides. Now new records and mass graves show many more died. Do you really want WW3? That's what Putin is trying to start. This is the same as Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938. Europe could have stopped the Nazis there, but tried to appease Hitler. It didn't work. Do you want me to show you a map of the maximum extent of what the Nazis controlled? It's massive! Far fewer people would have died if Hitler was stopped in Czechosolovakia. That's exactly what's happening now in Ukraine.
And allowing Mars to be broken up into separate countries, each with its own military, means the whole damn thing will repeat there. Do you really want to bring war to Mars?
Offline
Like button can go here
For RobertDyck ... a corporate government is by definition a dictatorship, but the exact style of management varies widely.
Some managers are noted for taking feedback from workers, and others are quite the opposite.
In a typical corporate environment workers don't get much of a "vote" and certainly they don't get to pick your leaders.
I'm interested if this topic showing how a corporate style of human organization could operate with success in the human landscape we have today.
kbd512 seems to be trying to remind you of the nature of human beings and how that nature manifests around the Earth today.
The common leadership style seems to be ego driven male, and that style is associated with violence.
I don't know this to be the case, but evolution of humans may have favored the genes of the males who could kill their competitors, so naturally the offspring from those lines would retain the tendencies that led to success in earlier times.
In the modern age of global atomic weaponry, I think that style is a bit dated, but that doesn't seem to have any effect on who get's lifted to top positions.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
tahanson43206,
Thank you for returning the discussion back on topic. For everyone I've spoken with, they expect Mars to be a place to get away from government. That's the whole point. Demanding everything you're used to must be copied, that really means you don't want to leave Earth. And turning Mars into a hell with wars, means no one would want to go there.
Tom, I am aware that some people will be cautious about a corporate government. But the other side is Mars must be profitable. The only way to build everything necessary to to live on Mars is a corporation. As I said, history shows government colonies fail. Because politics is always involved with anything government does. You can't leave settlers stranded on another planet while politicians and.political activist groups debate/argue/haggle for months or years whether to send necessary supplies. And anything as expensive as space would be hotly debated. Government hasn't been able put together a robotic sample return mission, much less a human science mission. As for human settlement: pffff! They won't.
I am proposing a system established upfront, before anyone goes. Under the administration of President-for-Life aka King Me the First, I am offering a constitution. Notice the restrictions. Primary authority lies with city-states. Anyone who buys land from the federal government, builds a homestead in the outback, is very much sovereign. But I don't want to put it that way because it's so f***ing arrogant! But putting it that way, under me, I would extend my life as long as possible, but upon death there would be elections for a democratic government. But we have to establish the structure. Without that structure, someone will try to corrupt it to the point of destroying everything.
I want to establish no death penalty. I do not believe in killing people. Murder or treason such as trying a military coup would be punished by deportation back to Earth. It would be up to the country the criminal came from to decide what to do with him. Incarceration in solitary confinement until a passenger ship is ready to return from Mars to Earth, and incarceration in a brig during the trip.
I need a separate post for the business aspects, because it must be profitable. No profit, no Mars. As another concrete example, Airbus spent between $30 billion and $34 billion to develop the A380. That's enough for a human mission to Mars. The only way a private company could raise that much money is the promise of positive return on investment. That means earning more money than spent, so it's a net gain.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2025-04-15 16:30:29)
Offline
Like button can go here
Do I have to start listing things that Donald J. Trump is currently doing, and state Mars will not do any of that?
A YouTube channel I follow, quoted a Twitter (X) post.
On the White House's theory, if they abduct you, get you on a helicopter, get to international waters, shoot you in the head, and drop your corpse into the ocean, that is legal, because it is the conduct of foreign affairs.
First, the Supreme Court of the US has already ruled this is wrong. While George W. Bush was president, one argument was prisoners could be tortured at Guantanamo because it's not on US soil. The court ruled that prisoners held in US custody, where ever, are subject to US law. That means accused have the right of due process, and prisoners cannot be tortured. Now Donald Trump wants to abduct "home growns" and deport them to a foreign prison. To be fair, in the interview on camera with Trump, he said he intends to deport them, not execute them. But still, the courts have already ruled he cannot do this. Trump is in violation of the law.
I argue that on Mars, anyone accused of any crime is entitled to due process. That means a court hearing. I could give examples of individuals who have been proven in court to be innocent of the accusation. Court is not there to protect criminals, it's there to protect law-abiding individuals who are falsely accused. And even if you're guilty of something, you cannot be punished for something you didn't do. For example, if you're guilty of leaving your car parked beside a parking meter too long, the meter expired. Oh no! You're guilty of a parking violation. So that means when someone accuses you of murder, the hit squad can come and execute you.
Ps. Regarding Trump sending individuals to a prison in El Salvador. It's a good time to remind everyone that Auschwitz was not located in Nazi German either.
In case you don't believe me:
YouTube: President Trump says he wants to send 'homegrown' criminals to foreign prisons
Offline
Like button can go here
RobertDyck,
Meanwhile George W. Bush invaded Iraq when there was no reason. Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11, and they were in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with it.
Meanwhile, you're railing against someone I never voted for. Tilt at that windmill a little harder, for all the good it will do.
Canada's medical system isn't perfect, but it's better than the US.
That's a matter of personal opinion. All the Canadians who come to the US to receive medical treatment for things your medical system fails to treat in a timely manner would clearly disagree, and they let their own private money do their talking, after your government has confiscated a significant portion of their paycheck, yet failed to provide those medical services. Canada's health care system is not "better" than the American system, merely different. Both systems fail in different ways. An honest person would admit that. A cheerleader would advocate for one system the other. I think both systems should be options that an individual can choose to take or leave.
As for Russia, you are not arguing against war, you're arguing for it.
Let's follow your line of thinking regarding what Russia will do in response to its logical conclusion. We somehow manage to wipe out Russia's conventional military forces. How do we do that? We invade Russia. What does the Russian government do if its military is facing annihilation at the hands of western military forces? It lobs its only remaining functional weapons, which would be its nuclear weapons, back at us. What happens then? Oh right, total destruction of Europe, America, Russia. What a brilliant plan. Why didn't I think of that? For starters, I'm not someone who thinks the Russians will decide to stop fighting when they're facing annihilation. What do I base that evaluation on? The Japanese military never stopped fighting after we'd already wiped two of their cities off the map with nuclear weapons. Both their military and their people had no plans to stop fighting us. Germany? Ditto. Stalingrad? Same.
There's yet another group of people who use this same line of reasoning- the Jews and the Palestinians. They're going to perpetually be at war with each other as a result, and nothing will change as long as they continue to use that line of reasoning.
You seem to want Mars to be some form of escapism from very human problems, and view the government as the problem, while fixating on some aspect of governance that you see as unfair or unwise. Nothing you've written so far makes me think you actually understand, or even attempt to understand, anyone else's viewpoint. Congratulations, you're exactly like the people you despise. You're no better, except in your own head, and no different.
First, the Supreme Court of the US has already ruled this is wrong.
According to you, our Supreme Court is wrong. You are very far from the first or last person to disagree with a Supreme Court ruling. Thankfully, your opinion is irrelevant. You're not an American and you don't live here. If you disagree so vehemently with American laws, then don't come here. You're looking to find fault over a personal or political disagreement. It's a lot easier to do that than it is to merely attempt to understand an issue or decision from anyone else's viewpoint, but that's also very intellectually lazy.
On the White House's theory, if they abduct you, get you on a helicopter, get to international waters, shoot you in the head, and drop your corpse into the ocean, that is legal, because it is the conduct of foreign affairs.
Timothy Snyder's theory is imputing his personal beliefs about what the White House actually said and did to what he wants it to mean to support his belief system. He has Trump Derangement Syndrome, same as you. President Trump is gone in less than four years. We had a dementia patient in the White House from 2020 to 2024. President Biden is gone now.
The person in this scenario is a foreign national drug cartel gang member. When you and Timmy demonstrate that you give a crap about the rights of all the people these illegals have raped, robbed, and murdered, then perhaps your words will carry more weight with people like me.
To be fair, in the interview on camera with Trump, he said he intends to deport them, not execute them.
That sounds like Timmy's strawman argument, which you "re-tweeted" here, is an outright falsehood, by your own admission. Now that we're both admitting that it was a gross misrepresentation of the actual nature of these deportations, we can proceed to talk about reality, rather than how our emotions make us feel about reality.
Ps. Regarding Trump sending individuals to a prison in El Salvador. It's a good time to remind everyone that Auschwitz was not located in Nazi German either.
Ps. Regarding Trump sending serial rapists and murderers back to their country of origin, since they are not Americans and entered America illegally. I'm guessing that after living with such brutish criminals for a week, assuming you're still alive, you'll be all in favor of tossing them out of helicopters, despite the fact that is clearly not what our government is actually doing with them.
Ps ps. Governor Josh Shapiro now thinks political violence needs to stop after one of his fellow leftists burned down the Governor's Mansion. I get whiplash from watching how fast leftists turn on a dime against criminals, the moment they become their victims. It's as if all the stupid leaves their body in an instant, they start behaving more like mature adults, and stop making endless excuses for the horrific things these violent criminals do to people.
Offline
Like button can go here
For RobertDyck re Corporate Government
In a recent post you revealed that you can imagine yourself the all-powerful dictator of a government on Mars.
This way of thinking fits in well with the current practice on Earth, which has a significant number of government run by males with strong ego and few scruples.
In a large corporation (and possibly in small ones) it is normal to have Succession Planning.
Your vision so far does not appear to include the notion of sharing power with a Board of Directors, but that might be a good idea to consider.
Succession planning is an activity that takes place in secret, in order to give all candidates the impression they might be considered for elevation to the top job.
In family operations, the senior keeps the secret inside his male head, so all the offspring have to duke it out when the senior passes without ceding power. That problem was solved by implementing the principle of primacy (primogeniture). We see examples of that on Earth in 2025, but most are frayed at the edges. It appears that efforts to start new examples are ever present.
It seems to me that a powerful leader must have followers who implement the ideas of the leader. We see that system in operation around the world in 2025.
I think it takes more than just money to motivate humans to support an autocratic leader.
There appears to be an almost cult like devotion present in the autocratic systems I see around the world. In the case of mainland China, the cult has been building for many decades, and it works tirelessly to sustain itself and to quash any dissension that might occur from time to time.
If your hypothetical Mars dictator is to be successful, the imposition of control must be present from the beginning, which means preventing unacceptable persons from landing on the planet, and that means possession of and control of the mean of using violence to enforce the policy of exclusion. Once put in place, the policy of exclusion must be enforced with constant vigilance, because dissidents will attempt to land on the planet at any time and in any location where they think you are not looking.
The application of that level of force will require a literal army of cult members who consider the leader to be a divine figure.
Fear is a major factor in the success of the autocrats I see on Earth in 2025. Putin appears to be willing to have his security forces kill anyone who appears to be offering a voice of opposition. Holding up a blank sign in opposition is enough to win what appears to be permanent jail in modern Russia.
A corporate dictator might be able to maintain control at the level we see on Earth today, in the context of Mars, but I am reminded of Shakespeare's warning about the sleepy time alertness of the crowned head.
Your idea of expelling dissidents is interesting.
While we have the exact same idea in the news today, I am reminded of the massive shipments of dissidents from England in past centuries, and apparently there are some in the UK who would still implement the policy if they could.
You would need to have a favorable relationship with the population of Earth, in order for you to dump your dissidents there. However, if you have implemented a force structure able to keep undesirables out, then chances are good that Earth will have the same capability.
Your topic of corporate governance seems worth developing further, because it is most certainly a possibility for Mars.
Essential for ** any ** undemocratic system is the need to possess overwhelming tools of violence, and a workforce willing to use them without qualm or hesitation.
Building such a work force usually takes decades and in some cases centuries, but Earth history shows it can be done.
* Quote: Henry IV, Part 2: "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown"
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
This is getting frustrating. kbd512 demands Mars be a copy of the US, with all the problems of the US. To put it bluntly, the US has tried to export its system to multiple countries, but it always failed. All. Canada developed a system of government by modifying the British system. Canada exported its system to other British colonies. They became countries, and most have succeeded. Are we seeing a pattern?
People do expect Mars to be a place to escape government, to escape the "Karens". If multiple countries exist on the planet, there will be war. There will be. kbd512 admitted to this, but justifies it. He wants war because he served as an enlisted crewman on an American Nimitz class aircraft carrier, and is proud of it. I have more respect for members of the US military who served in ballistic missile silos in North Dakota. I've met a few. They're mild mannered, peaceful people who hate war. I'm sure they were chosen for that job because of their temperament. But war is bad. War is nothing but mass murder for the purpose of armed robbery. The only exception are those defending themselves against attack, by someone trying to commit mass murder for the purpose of armed robbery. If anyone tells you a war is or was about a higher purpose, they're lying. If your history books claim some war in your country's past was about anything else, then whoever wrote the book lied, and teachers who are teaching from that book are also lying.
The United Nations was conceived of and essentially established by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The League of Nations was established after World War 1, but failed. Roosevelt wanted the UN to do the same job, but be successful. Well, the UN is better, but still hasn't succeeded. The purpose of the UN is mutual assured security. If one nation attacks another country, then all the nations of the UN come to the aid of the defender. That's it's purpose, anything else is an "extra curricular activity". What I am proposing goes beyond the UN, addresses it's problems. It's not an international debate club, it's a federal government.
As long as anyone is arguing in favour of war, then I have no respect for that person. I could be more rude if necessary.
Offline
Like button can go here