It's all so very nice, BUT

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-23 02:36:06

A very warm welcome to New Mars, Jeff!
You have put forward some very pertinent and interesting points. It's always a pleasure to have a different viewpoint on these matters.
I don't get involved in future Martian politics very much. It's as much as I can do just to keep up with Terran politics!!
However, I'm sure you will get some quality feedback from a few of our resident politicians in due course.
Good to have you aboard!

clark · 2002-08-26 07:06:53

Maybe I have missed it, but what about the role of Banishment? This could be quite an effective tool that could stop both imminent and repeatable threats while preserving the stated rights of the individual.

Banishment on Mars = death.

Where can you banish people to on Mars? Outside? They last as long as they have electricity and air in their suits. Other settlements? So make it somebody else's problem? Why would any other settlement have any desire to take the criminals of another settlement? If there are none, then it isn't banishment, but death.

I wonder if it should also be a priviledge to be martian rather than just a right.

I wonder if "human" should be a privelage, rather than a right. What do you think? If we stipulate requirements for being "martian" then we must sak, who decided who is and isn't a martian- what are the criteria, how is that criteria established.

Modern example: The government in the USA can now decide who is and isn't an "unlawful combatant" in it's war on terroism. Once it decides, there is no appeal. Once it decides that you are an unlawful combatant, you have no rights (according to the US Justice department). There is acase right now that will determine the legitmacy of this action. If the enemy combatant, who is technically an american citizen, is found to be an enemy combatant, based on the governments say-so, we will allow the government the power to decide who is and isn't the enemy, thereby determining who does and does not have rights. It is a frightening situation we are about to enter, I cannot imagine that it would be any better if we were on Mars and considering who is and isn't a martian.

the Terran governments will tire of warehousing their criminals and start shipping them to Mars. They are not likely to accept any Martian criminals. Mars is likely to fill the role of
Australia which really wasn't a bad thing for Australians either then or now.

Kind of exspensive way to house your criminals.... not likely for a myriad of reason, most of all, economicaly, it is ridiculous. It is cheaper to just house them on Antartica, and have the same results.

Also, it is more likely that whoever manages to fund and therefore control the bases will do so by might and as we all know, no power was ever wrested from those in power except at the end of a weapon.

Check out the history of the Civil Rights movement in 1960's. Check out the transistion from Colony to independance for India from Britian. Check out the woman's suffrage movement in the USA, early 1900's. Check out the peaceful transfer of power every four years in the USA.

History is likely to repeat itself unless the nature of mankind is changed somehow.

Agreed. Suggestion: Mankind should read more history.

Cobra Commander · 2002-08-29 17:54:20

Here is ONE reason: Those in power at a base have the support of most of the local population within their base to take over another base. The people threaten to use any means neccessary to take over another base (lets say they disagree with abortions, which are allowed at the other base) and prevent them from carrying out laws that the people within the base have chosen for themselves. I believe this meets the criteria for allowing the "termination of life support" dependant upon "credible threat".

Not exactly. If they have an army massed and moving to attack the base (which I'd imagine would be quite an undertaking) then the threat is credible. If they simply announce their desire, or even intention, to attack it is not. If their potential to attack or desire to attack is considered enough to justify retaliation it establishes a dangerous precedent. Can we then imprison someone for expressing a desire to rob a bank, for example?

When did Afghanistan attack the USA? PEOPLE in Dome-Afghanistan attacked Dome B(America), then hid in Dome-Afghanistan. Dome-B's response was to attack everyone in Dome-Afghanistan. How is that any different than what I have been suggesting? How is the terran example more acceptable than the martian one I have been describing?

The government of Afghanistan aided and harbored those that attacked us, therefore we are justified in removing that government. The American campaign has, as much as is practical, avoided bringing harm to the civilian population. That is the difference, the Terran example is directed against a government, your Martian example is directed against the entire population.

Why are nations allowed to resolve their disputes with violence, but not those who live under the same government?

The primary purpose of a government is to protect the people it governs.

If we're dealing with hostile Martian states that are legitimate and credible threats, shutting down life support can be justified.

So then you would agree that the central government should have the power to terminate life support! However, to be fair, you want to establish the "acceptable" use of the power- the when and where's... right?

No. If a government must shut down life support, and it can be justified by the extreme danger of the situation, it is acceptable. However, government should not be granted the power to do so before hand. Is it clean and simple? No. But it makes the decision to shut off the air harder and riskier, as it should be.

The Commander wrote... "Even if a Martian Authority mandated it, anyone intent on defying the Authority's laws would disable it long before they took any other action."

To which Clark replied,

Irrelevant...

No, it's not irrelevant. It is, in fact at the very heart of the matter. If a system is in place for a central Martian Authority to shut off life support, it CAN and WILL BE disabled by those it would be used against. Disabling it would be a prerequisite for taking any threatening action. Therefore, while giving the government authority to shut of life support will not prevent a single criminal act and will not allow a resolution to a single conflict, what it will do is establish a precedent that the government can use whatever means it wants to get its way, assuming it can scare people into believing it's actions are necessary. I'm a confessed Fascist and I know that's wrong!

If the threat is from criminals within the colony, shutting off life support simply kills innocent people while protecting no one

Economic embargo's simply kills innocent people, leaving the criminals to run the country and live like kings- yet we accept that action as legitimate and "humane". How is that any different?

When we bomb cities, innocent people pay with their lives so a few criminals can die- is that acceptable? Why?

On the first point, I agree. Economic embargos are ineffective and they harm the population, not the government. If there's one hotdog in Iraq, Saddam's eatin' it.
On the second point, it can be justified if the government doing the bombing is acting to protect its people. But, for the record, we don't do much bombing of cities anymore.

How do you justify the cold blooded murder of one single innocent person that is tried, convicted, and executed by Society?

I'm not going to deny that on occasion innocent people are convicted and sentenced to death. It is unfortunate, and there can be no compensation for it. This is a thorny issue for those of us who support the death penalty, but we have to be practical. At any rate, the flaw is not in the existence of the death penalty but in the judicial process that institutes it. (A judicial process making a mistake, imagine that...)
By the way, are you insinuating that executing a wrongfully convicted person is comparable to willfully killing the entire population of a city? You question whether it's acceptable to allow one person to be excuted wrongly, yet advocate the same for hundreds?

Does anyone even remember what this thread was originally about? If anyone would like to get back on topic, feel free. Clark and I seem to have driven everyone away with our ranting.

Palomar · 2002-08-29 22:58:43

*Well, since I started this thread, I'm going to feel free to interject this:

::John Locke's Politics::

Locke's influence extended beyond philosophy. His writings on politics also inspired Enlightenment reformers like Denis Diderot, Thomas Jefferson, and others. Locke returned to England from exile in Holland with the manuscripts of his _Two Treatises of Government_ and the _Essay Concerning Human Understanding_, both published in 1690.

Said Locke: "The CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE is the sole basis of a government's authority. Governments have NO OTHER duties beyond those for which they were first instituted: the preservation of life, liberty, and property."

Locke suggested that should the prince [or "single hereditary Person" -- keep in mind that he was writing in a time and age wherein his culture and society, and that of all Europe's, knew only hereditary rulers] use his power in an arbitrary way, without the consent of the people, then "the people are at liberty to provide for themselves." Rebellion was justified to counter the arbitrary or despotic use of power by a ruler.

--Material taken from _Introducing the Enlightenment_ by Lloyd Spencer.

I'm offering this as food for thought, and am not seeking debate [I'm currently rather pressed for time]. I think Locke has some very good points.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-09-03 10:41:32

Not exactly. If they have an army massed and moving to attack the base (which I'd imagine would be quite an undertaking) then the threat is credible.

So there has to be an actual physical manifestation of a threat? How much of a physical manifestation? You site "army massed", which makes me wonder- what constutites an "army"? That is at the heart of the "threat", is it not? So in the case of Dome Afghanistan, what army was massed in afghanistan? Wasn't it just a bunch of terroists? If they were and are part of an army, dosen't that establish the basis for using the geneva convention? You see, I can accept the terms that you outline for "credible threat" but by doing so, it neccessarily implicates the current actions of the US government as illegal and wrong.

If they simply announce their desire, or even intention, to attack it is not.

It is a crime to threaten somebody in this country, is that a questionable law? If someone threatens the pres of the US, they go to jail. Is that wrong?

If their potential to attack or desire to attack is considered enough to justify retaliation it establishes a dangerous precedent.

Isn't that the precedent that the United States is setting by preparing to attack Iraq?

Can we then imprison someone for expressing a desire to rob a bank, for example?

Is it right for people to be imprisoned for expressing a desire for the violent overthrow of the government? There is the answer.

The government of Afghanistan aided and harbored those that attacked us, therefore we are justified in removing that government.

The US government aides and supports dictators and repressive regimes in many countries throughout the world, are the people of those countries justified in trying to remove OUR government?

The American campaign has, as much as is practical, avoided bringing harm to the civilian population. That is the difference, the Terran example is directed against a government, your Martian example is directed against the entire population.

So then nuclear weapons cannot morally or legally be used on anything other than a prepondonderance of military material. Nuclear weapons are in effect the same power (in scope) as the powers I have suggested for a central martian government. anuclear strike is directed at an entire population- it affects the entire population. So nuclear weapons and their use are wrong?

The primary purpose of a government is to protect the people it governs.

So how is it fufilling that role if it purposely kills the people it is supposed to protect? (death penalty) Should the government intervene if a mob forms that wants to kill someone? That is what the death penalty is- a societal mob bent on killing one person.

No. If a government must shut down life support, and it can be justified by the extreme danger of the situation, it is acceptable. However, government should not be granted the power to do so before hand. Is it clean and simple? No. But it makes the decision to shut off the air harder and riskier, as it should be.

That is exactly what I was describing though- judicial review to allow the use of the power. A reason iks needed to "justify" the termination of life support- this is determined by a judicial process.

If a system is in place for a central Martian Authority to shut off life support, it CAN and WILL BE disabled by those it would be used against. Disabling it would be a prerequisite for taking any threatening action.

Then it would seem that disabling the ability would be a good indicator that action will be neccessary- it acts as a signal. However, the opposition may disable the ability to easily shut off life support by a third party, however it does not negate the fact that authorization to terminate life support is what we are discussing- HOW that is done is up to the people in charge- think of it like the army- we tell the army what their objectives are, and what force they are allowed to achieve that objective.

At any rate, the flaw is not in the existence of the death penalty but in the judicial process that institutes it. (A judicial process making a mistake, imagine that...)

So then why allow a faulty judicial process the power to terminate life? What sense is there in that?

By the way, are you insinuating that executing a wrongfully convicted person is comparable to willfully killing the entire population of a city?

Yes. Isn't wrong, "wrong", no matter the scale?

If I get twelve people together, and we sit in a bar and decide that someone should be murdered, I would consider that wrong- yet I am trying to understand why putting those same 12 people in a deliberation room, to decide the very same thing, is considered legitimate and just.

You question whether it's acceptable to allow one person to be excuted wrongly, yet advocate the same for hundreds?

Becuase it is simple logic, either it is okay to kill, or it isn't. We hold that killing people is okay if it is at the hands of the state. We also accept that instutiting this practice will entail that some innocent people are killed mistakenly. If we accept that some innocent blood is a price we are willing to pay, what difference is there in targeting an entire city? What is the "rate" at which we are willing to trade innocent life for guilty life? 1 to 1? 1 innocent for every 100 guilty? 1 to 1000, 1 to 1,000,000? How do you decide that too many innocent people will die in one situation, but in another, the loss of innocent life is acceptable?

You see, that's the problem I am setting up here- and it is primarily an American one.

Cobra Commander · 2002-09-10 14:33:46

what army was massed in afghanistan? Wasn't it just a bunch of terroists? If they were and are part of an army, dosen't that establish the basis for using the geneva convention? You see, I can accept the terms that you outline for "credible threat" but by doing so, it neccessarily implicates the current actions of the US government as illegal and wrong.

We've been over this repeatedly, but again: The government of Afghanistan not only approved of the attacks and actively supported those that carried them out, but that government was so intermixed with the terrorist network as to be essentially a part of it.
The Geneva Convention does not apply to non-uniformed, non-military fighters (in this case, terrorists). Regular Afghan soldiers were treated in accord with the convention. Nothing about the US actions is illegal or wrong.

It is a crime to threaten somebody in this country, is that a questionable law? If someone threatens the pres of the US, they go to jail. Is that wrong?

Bad example. What happens if someone threatens a regular John Q Public citizen. MAYBE a restraining order will be issued unless some evidence is available to make the threat more credible.

If their potential to attack or desire to attack is considered enough to justify retaliation it establishes a dangerous precedent.
Isn't that the precedent that the United States is setting by preparing to attack Iraq?

Indeed it is. If we proceed it will cause problems down the line. That is the primary objection, in fact.

Is it right for people to be imprisoned for expressing a desire for the violent overthrow of the government? There is the answer.

No, it is not. But then, I'm not aware of anyone who is in prison solely for expressing a desire to overthrow the government.

The US government aides and supports dictators and repressive regimes in many countries throughout the world, are the people of those countries justified in trying to remove OUR government?

Not the same situation. The US GOVERNMENT acted to remove a foreign GOVERNMENT. If the citizens of one of less than democratic vassals wants a change, focusing on their own government seems the appropriate action. If they attack a foreign government, on their own without the backing of any state, they are just criminals.

Nuclear weapons are in effect the same power (in scope) as the powers I have suggested for a central martian government. anuclear strike is directed at an entire population- it affects the entire population. So nuclear weapons and their use are wrong?

Nuclear weapons can be used against military targets controlled by foreign powers. The life support kill-switch you propose can only be used by a government against its own people.

The primary purpose of a government is to protect the people it governs.
So how is it fufilling that role if it purposely kills the people it is supposed to protect? (death penalty)

When someone commits the kind of crimes that we have the death penalty for, they become above all else a threat to the population and therefore cease to be a part of the "people" the government is sworn to protect. They become what the people must be protected from.

However, government should not be granted the power to do so before hand. Is it clean and simple? No. But it makes the decision to shut off the air harder and riskier, as it should be.
That is exactly what I was describing though- judicial review to allow the use of the power. A reason iks needed to "justify" the termination of life support- this is determined by a judicial process.

It seemed that what advocated involved giving the government the option in the form of law. If I am mistaken, I apologize, but if I read it right and you did advocate a law allowing the government to shut down life support, then we are not describing the same thing. Government may do this, some situation may arise in which it is the only option, but it should not be established as a normal function of the law beforehand. If a government needs to do this, it needs to be ready to accept the consequences. Enshrining the action in law makes those consequences much less severe, and therefore makes it far more likely that the option will be used when other means would suffice.

Then it would seem that disabling the ability would be a good indicator that action will be neccessary- it acts as a signal. However, the opposition may disable the ability to easily shut off life support by a third party, however it does not negate the fact that authorization to terminate life support is what we are discussing- HOW that is done is up to the people in charge- think of it like the army- we tell the army what their objectives are, and what force they are allowed to achieve that objective.

So now the system is reduced to a sort of surveillance system, a warning that a settlement may be growing distant from the central authority. This is fine, assuming it is the rogue colony and not the central authority that is working against the interests of the people. This is the major, underlying difference between our positions. You`seem to trust the good intentions of government, I don't.

So then why allow a faulty judicial process the power to terminate life? What sense is there in that?

Interesting. Logically, we should not allow the faulty system such power, in which case this life support shutdown suggestion is madness. I assume this is the Kamikaze school of debate, you have me in a problem I can't get out of, but in so doing you've destroyed your entire argument.

I, for one, like the fact that Clark rips into every flaw he can see in these posts, it keeps the rest of us honest. But the Devil's advocate approach begins to fall apart when the opposing argument losing any semblance of consistency. The sword of logic cuts both ways.

Unless someone says something terribly thought provoking or changes the subject completely, this discussion appears to be without any further purpose.

Cobra Commander · 2002-10-17 13:13:23

When I first read Zubrin's list of the "Rights of Mars" several years back, something just didn't sit right. At the time I dismissed it as overly idealistic rhetoric and promptly forgot about it, never quite sure what wasn't right, just certain that something was off. Recently I found myself in a discussion with a group of some of my left-wing associates, who brought up some of the very same "rights", and it hit me like a bolt of lighting right between the eyes as though the gods did proclaim from on high "Thou art a jackass for not seeing it before!" But to the point:

Palomar · 2002-10-17 13:45:03

When I first read Zubrin's list of the "Rights of Mars" several years back, something just didn't sit right. At the time I dismissed it as overly idealistic rhetoric and promptly forgot about it, never quite sure what wasn't right, just certain that something was off. Recently I found myself in a discussion with a group of some of my left-wing associates, who brought up some of the very same "rights", and it hit me like a bolt of lighting right between the eyes as though the gods did proclaim from on high "Thou art a jackass for not seeing it before!" But to the point:
The first nine on the list, taken from the US Constitution, enumerate things that government cannot deny you or do to you. Many of the additional "rights", however, are things that the government must do for you. The "Right to free education", the "Right to remain in the biosphere" (was that one of his or did I see that elsewhere?), any expanding list of "rights" that are more services than freedoms leads to one thing: a population of dependents. The right to free speech is a freedom, a "Right to access to means of mass communication" is an entitlement. A right is something we, as human beings inherently have. An entitlement is something given to us from above, the acceptance of which implies that we accept that Big Brother knows best. A population of dependents is not a good foundation for a free society. Some of these "rights" are very much in opposition to the creation of a free state. Unless of course we want a dependent population to keep the government in power. (Have the Democrats already thought of this?)
End of rant.
Aside from that, many of the additional "rights" are redundant, assuming one accepts the preceding nine at face value. Then of course this whole "direct voting" business; while there isn't enough historical evidence to make a crushing argument against it, I for one am extremely skeptical. I've never heard of one hundred senators agreeing on anything, I can't see a million Martians reaching a consensus, unless a simple majority is sufficient, in which case we have essentially mob rule, presented in a nice, civilized package, but still unmoderated rule-by-numbers.
Just something to think about...
Okay. Now the rant is really over.

*Wow.

What an excellent post. You are right-on about rights vs. entitlements.

You're not the only one who got a bolt of lightning between the eyes...

--Cindy

Earthfirst · 2002-10-22 21:16:44

From what I read you people feel that people have rights, of all things????? If you look at history all there has ever been is slavery, racism, murder, and the few in power that run it all. If it is the one thing we should be aware of is that the natural state of life is the storng to control the week. sad thing that it is. In my view the only rights a person has is the ones that have the power give them. Example in Irag they held a vote recently, and Sadom insane got 99.9% of the vote. Its not that his people love him it that he was the only one they were aloud to vote for. Well every one but the crudes but that problem just seemed to go away. "He gased them"
Another example is slavery people act like its a terrable thing if it so wrong why has it been going on sence history started?
Because it is the natural way of live, Rome enslaved millions of people murdering its way though history. Should Italy have pay rebperations to England, France, Germany, and all the other people they enslaved of crouse not.
I think its great you have all these ideas of freadom and other stuff, but you have to face the facts poeple will only be free if the poeple with the guns monry and power let you have it.
Consider your selfs lucky that you live in a country were they let you be free, and remeber the great cost of that freedom won though all the ars America has fought. Hey in China they will sure agree with you that you have rights to freedom, thin point a big gun at you and tell to get back to work in the rice patty. "They are little more than slaves of the state." Who can say that a freedom loving government will run mars, if you use earth as a model there will be a few Rich Powerful people in charge"they have the guns, or on mars control the air, water and food supply. The rest will be little more than slaves at the merce of there all powerful GODS. Mars in my veiw wont be free becace poeplewill realy so much manmade thing to live, like air since there is no breathable supply like here on Earth. So get out your wipe and hope that you dont become a slave!!!!!!!

Cobra Commander · 2002-10-25 14:43:31

... you have to face the facts poeple will only be free if the poeple with the guns monry and power let you have it.

Quite true, which is why I so adamantly insist that we, the people always be among those with the guns. The only real "right" is the right to fight for your own survival. If you give up the means to compel by force, you no longer have any freedom, you have permission to engage in certain activities. The thing about permission is that it can be revoked, and if you can't employ force, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. We can have a world with the individual rights and freedoms we have become so enamored of, but only if we conform our ideals to reality.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2002-08-23 02:36:06

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#77 2002-08-26 07:06:53

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#78 2002-08-29 17:54:20

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#79 2002-08-29 22:58:43

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#80 2002-09-03 10:41:32

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#81 2002-09-10 14:33:46

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#82 2002-10-17 13:13:23

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#83 2002-10-17 13:45:03

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#84 2002-10-22 21:16:44

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#85 2002-10-25 14:43:31

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

Board footer