SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
http://www.autodidacts.io/who-will-own-mars/
Everyone's excited about rockets to Mars, and each SpaceX launch brings that dream closer to reality. Musk and others are putting a lot of money and brainpower on the technical problem of getting people to Mars. Less sensational topics, such as surviving on Mars, receive less attention — but plenty of money and serious thought, because there's no way to get around them.
But there's another important question which isn't getting much attention:
Who will own Mars, and how will it be governed?
Does Mars belong to the people who get there first? To the highest bidder? To all the people of Earth?
Does Mars belong to Earth, or does Mars belong to Mars? Does it belong to the Sun? To the Martian microbiome, if there is one? (What are the indigenous rights of microbes, I wonder?)
Who will be in charge of Mars once the colonists arrive? If Mars turns out to have valuable resources, who gets them? And if a Mars colony is to govern itself, what kind of government would it have?
The Mars colonization project is driven by the ultra rich. And those who want to stake their claim on Mars may rather the rest of us didn't think too much about the little problem of who owns the planet next door, and why.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:06PM (24 children)
It's time to start constructing intricate, fine-grained well-defined contracts between individuals. No more of this "Government can change the rules at any time" nonsense. The future will be built on agreement, not politics.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday March 31 2017, @06:38PM (16 children)
You libertarian extremists are so stupid. Your contract is useless against my guns (or kinetic projectiles dropped from orbit). How do you propose to prevent people with guns taking your stuff? Maybe you'll join up with a some other people for a common defense. But the enemy has a lot of guns, so you'll need to join up with a lot of other people to have enough resources to build an army to oppose your enemy. What should we call this organization of people who have joined together and share resources? Oh yeah, it's called a "government".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:02PM
My violently imposed monopoly can beat your violently imposed monopoly! 😝
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:17PM (5 children)
An organization is a "government" when it allocates resources by coercion rather than agreement; that's the whole point of having a robust system of law by contracts, the enforcement of which is itself a service that is implemented in a market of competing service providers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:27PM
You have a lot of growing up to do along with a lot of learning about human nature.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 31 2017, @10:11PM (3 children)
And when I decide not to honor that contract I signed?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 01 2017, @12:30AM
That's not very angelic of you, now is it?! :)
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 01 2017, @03:22AM (1 child)
Then the people I contracted with to enforce my contracts will coerce you to honor the contract. And if those people don't honor that contract, then the people I contracted with to enforce the contract with the people I contracted with to enforce the contract with you will coerce them to coerce you. It's contracts all the way down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 02 2017, @01:53PM
Yeah, same argument can be made about money: it's a contract of debt. And nobody ever welches on a debt, do they?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 31 2017, @07:24PM (2 children)
One thing is for sure. Even without guns. Once on Mars, people will find ways of killing each other. And for the same reasons as on Earth. Even when there are few people at first and lots of land. It will ultimately come down to politics. But MY WAY of how everyone should live is the right way.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:31PM (1 child)
The reason the "west" cannot export democracy to the third world is because there is a cultural mismatch.
The same holds here: There is not yet a "libertarian" culture strong enough to reinforce a market of binding agreements through reverence of contracts. However, that will be the way of the future; it's either that, or stagnation followed by some kind of destruction.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday April 01 2017, @08:29AM
"Exporting democracy" is newspeak for implementing a political system controlled by money. With the export of democracy comes the destruction of infrastructure, with that comes the aid, and the debt, and the forced international agreements, and suddenly whoever you vote for is irrelevant.
Aristocracy/strong classes and systems of values are competitors of such a democracy, while dictators and monarchy are easier to control/own.
Account abandoned.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:27PM (3 children)
I guess "Troll" means "Disagree"? Assholes.
An organization is a "government" when it allocates resources by coercion rather than agreement; that's the whole point of having a robust system of law by contracts, the enforcement of which is itself a service that is implemented in a market of competing service providers, which is the strongest form of separation of powers.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:30PM
Not assholes, people just tired of you spouting the same phrase on every story. You have received more than enough replies to your naive attempt to re-create the wheel. Maybe save your rhetoric for a story titled "How to Restructure Government" or something more applicable. In case you missed reality, governments have these things called treaties, basically the "system of contracts" you're looking for. People != computer programs, never gonna happen.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday March 31 2017, @07:41PM (1 child)
BTW, your posts will keep being marked redundant when their content is essentially identical to another of your comments at the same level of the same thread, with a parenthetical gripe about moderation as the only addition.
If you want to gripe about bad mods, go ahead; do it as a response to the poorly-modded comment and don't bother quoting the parent. You may still get modded down, but at least it won't be a "redundant" mod.
PS - not posting anonymously, because I'd rather you know this is coming from the same guy who took some time to give you a thought-out response instead of a terse dismissal. I'm trying to be constructive here; please post better so we can talk more easily.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday April 01 2017, @03:23PM
The problem is, I think he not only believes what he's saying (and can't see the flaws), but also thinks it's relevant almost everywhere. If he's a teen this is natural and he'll grow out of this with more experience, but some people never do. I think I became a case hardened cynic by my mid-twenties. Since then, only the flavor of cynicism has changed.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:36PM
I guess "Troll" means "Disagree"? YOU make it "Redundant".
An organization is a "government" when it allocates resources by coercion rather than agreement; that's the whole point of having a robust system of law by contracts, the enforcement of which is itself a service that is implemented in a market of competing service providers, which is the strongest form of separation of powers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 01 2017, @08:52AM
If you need a good example of contract versus gun, look at how the settlers of the USA took stuff from the native Americans.
We had that "Manifest Destiny" thing going, and the native Americans had a choice... give us their land for trinkets, or we will fight them for it. But it was "civilized", They had "a choice."
Now, if the native Americans had some superior weapons, or knew more about how to instigate diseases amongst the wielders of the gun, this whole thing would have turned out quite differently.
The French had the same experience... they aristocracy piddled around with their pens and papers, subjugating the minions, until the minions had enough and decided to reset the system. The last I heard, the aristocracy went down, still wagging their pens, trying to entice the Swiss to enforce their pen-waggings.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Spook brat on Friday March 31 2017, @07:29PM (4 children)
I'm sure that I'm going to regret this, but I'll give your post the response I think it requests.
It's time to start constructing intricate, fine-grained well-defined contracts between individuals.
In what way is a constitutional government not a well-defined contract? Are you seriously suggesting that an entire society can be built on a growing network of individual-to-individual contracts? n(n − 1)/2 contracts being set up for a population of n, just to establish a social order? Or are you just requiring that every citizen in a society become a signatory to the broader contract upon reaching the age of majority? What option do they have if they choose not to ratify? Exile? All of that seems rather cumbersome, not to mention unscaleable.
No more of this "Government can change the rules at any time" nonsense.
Would you rather that the contracts not have any method for being altered to match new circumstance? Or are you suggesting that we individually amend n(n-)/2 contracts whenever major changes are needed to respond to changes in the community's needs and desires? There's a reason the U.S.A. chose representative democracy as its system rather than direct democracy or individual person-to-person contracts; it's a compromise between the efficiency of a totalitarian monarchy and the unimaginable complexity / bureaucracy that would be caused by needing everyone's direct vote on every issue.
The future will be built on agreement, not politics.
How in the (world|solar system|universe) would such a system exist free of politics? Do you imagine that there will not be trends in popular opinion or judicial decisions affecting the way we interpret various clauses of standard contract types? That there will be no influential people, no organizations founded on support or opposition to specific principles? Politics isn't some misfeature of modern government styles, it's an emergent aspect of human behavior in large groups. That's not going to go away even in a Libertarian utopia governed by fine-grained personal contracts.
All of that is off-topic for the thread, though. The question at hand is "who will own Mars", and several of the comments agree that force of arms will be the deciding factor there, just like it has been throughout human history. If you can produce a more practical definition of ownership than "can be defended against theft" I'm all ears; that's how it works at the National scale, and it scales down to the individual remarkably well. And by the way, make sure that whatever company you contract with for regional security has a clause in their contract preventing them from utilizing violence against their own clients to unilaterally raise the payment rate, there have been problems with that in the past. [wikipedia.org]
If you're wondering why your posts keep getting marked "troll", it's because you sound like you really haven't thought your own position through very far and haven't studied History at all. Repeatedly insisting that your ideas are the One True Path for a Free Society (TM) in the face of glaring problems that are easily foreseen and for which you have proposed no solutions doesn't advance your argument. Instead, it sounds like noise even when it's on-topic for the discussion.
By the way, are you a fan of Big Head Press by any chance? Their stories titled The Probability Broach, [bigheadpress.com] Escape From Terra, [bigheadpress.com] and Quantum Vibe [quantumvibe.com] are all well-written graphic novels presenting a proposed society set up much like what I think you're trying to describe. I'm pretty sure you'd enjoy the read. Tell you what; read through the archives, submit a review as a story, and I'll gladly have an in-depth discussion of the practical aspects of such a system. I think it would make a good thread. Fair warning, I've read them all, and given it quite a bit of thought already; I agree with the general ideas more than you'd probably think from the tone of this post, and my points of contention with it will likely surprise you.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @08:41PM (3 children)
A dispute is the lack of a contract (explicit or otherwise); a dispute is people engaging in behavior that is not well defined, and thus entails outcomes that are not well defined (and are therefore dangerous).
Note that your critical questions are based on a foundation of uncertainty: What happens when a person doesn't agree? Well, what you're talking about is a case that is not well defined; what's wrong with pointing out the virtue in really thinking about how to define such cases in a way that reduces the feeling of coercion for all parties involved? That should be a topic that excites those who are interested in building a civilized society.
In what I say, there is no requirement that there be recorded intricate details for every interaction between every individual; that is your straw man argument. Indeed, a "culture" is the name that is given to a very complex set of rules that are more or less implicit, not written down in a record. Believe it or not, there is profit in agreement.
That being said, technology is always making it more plausible to manage ever more intricate sets of data.
Consider that people largely already exist in a world where, in the same society, the "law" for one individual is not the same as the "law" for another: You are under contract to pay for a mortgage, whereas I am not, and so on. You work under the conditions of an NDA, whereas I do not, and so on. The vast bulk of contemporary "law" is already a matter of contracts, but there is still not yet a solid appreciation for the sanctity of such contract "law", due to the fact that people believe it is good and proper for a government's dictatorial "law" to override anything at any time; that lack of stability renders every contract suspect (maybe this year it's "legal" to sell beer, but maybe the next year it won't be; see the American "Prohibition").
There is a strange inversion in present society: Rather than a government's law being embedded in (that is, referenced by) a contract, it is instead the case that a contract is implicitly embedded in a government's law, thereby making the government not only a party to the contract but also a party that has the power to make unilateral alterations; that is no contract at all, but rather theatre to disguise the dictatorial, authoritarian relationship with the government.
It is no wonder, then, that lobbying is such a massive part of our society: Who cares what the contract says when you can influence the true holder of power: The Government.
It is already widely understood that a monopoly is probably a bad idea, especially a monopoly that is imposed violently. Yet, that is exactly what a government seeks to be in various aspects of society.
To combat abuse of this position, the founders of the United States Government attempted to enshrine the concept of a Separation of Powers; taking that concept to its limit yields the concept of competition within a market of voluntary trade, where "voluntary" means "as specified by contracts to the greatest extent possible"—enforcement of a contract is itself specified by the contract (and is therefore voluntary), and the service of enforcement must co-evolve along with the rest of the market.
There is no reason why there shouldn't develop a standard body of contracts that are easily referenced by everyone, as a shorthand, when constructing new agreements, etc.
As far as being a repititious troll who doesn't comprehend what he's saying and has no appreciation for history, well, the feeling is mutual; that's how the rest of your "ideas" and "responses" appear to me; the asymmetry between us is at least twofold:
They are perfectly comfortable using authoritarian means to shut me down, whereas I am not comfortable doing the same to them.
They represent a majority; authoritarianism is an ancient, quasi-religious system of organization—might (through numbers, in this case) can very easily make ideas look right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @09:32PM
It is possible to "censor", just by adding noise:
- The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies [cryptome.org]
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday March 31 2017, @10:07PM
Thanks for the reply! I see that you're trying to make a respectful reply, and I'll attempt to grant you the same courtesy.
A dispute is the lack of a contract (explicit or otherwise); a dispute is people engaging in behavior that is not well defined
*That is a very odd definition of dispute, and I have to wonder how you arrived at it.
In my mind a dispute is a conflict of ideas, a difference of opinion. Disputes are common even among parties with established contractual relationships, with no government needed for it to occur. All that is needed is a misalignment of interests and a disagreement regarding the preferred resolution. More on this later.
*I see nothing wrong with discussing ill-defined social norms; I recommend that one of the first boundary cases you test your system against for robustness is the birth (or graduation to age of majority) of a new citizen within the established system. What is your proposal for how to deal with integrating them into the existing social contract? This is not a frivolous triviality; it is a necessary condition for your society to persist past the founding generation.
It's time to start constructing intricate, fine-grained well-defined contracts between individuals.
In what I say, there is no requirement that there be recorded intricate details for every interaction between every individual; that is your straw man argument. Indeed, a "culture" is the name that is given to a very complex set of rules that are more or less implicit, not written down in a record
*These two statements do not match. I see that I am confused, can you please explain what you mean? How is a societal contract both (fine-grained/between individuals, well defined) AND (cultural (i.e. applies to everyone in society), implicit/not written down)? Societal scope is the opposite end of the scale from individual scope, and well-defined contracts are almost always written (frequently notarized by third parties) for the purposes of both clarity and dispute resolution after-the-fact. I do not understand how these can simultaneously be the basis of a society.
*Your point regarding lobbying being a hack of the Government for personal benefit is valid, and any new society needs to take steps to avoid becoming similarly corrupt. Be prepared to explain how the neutral third parties in your society who provide arbitration services will be kept from being similarly corrupted. (note: I'm not interested in exploring that now, so don't feel compelled to explain it to me)
It is already widely understood that a monopoly is probably a bad idea, especially a monopoly that is imposed violently. Yet, that is exactly what a government seeks to be in various aspects of society.
To combat abuse of this position, the founders of the United States Government attempted to enshrine the concept of a Separation of Powers; taking that concept to its limit yields the concept of competition within a market of voluntary trade, where "voluntary" means "as specified by contracts to the greatest extent possible"—enforcement of a contract is itself specified by the contract (and is therefore voluntary), and the service of enforcement must co-evolve along with the rest of the market.
*I agree that the separation of powers outlined in the U.S. constitution is one of the best things that the Founders got right in the process.
One of the primary misgivings I have about the system you propose is the distinct possibility that one or more of these contract enforcement agencies will become powerful enough that it becomes a monopoly on use of force on its own. There is a very clear pathway to it, as the network effect and other market forces will make larger enforcement agencies more effective than smaller ones. Let's be honest about what these organizations will be: armies of mercenary lawyers. Those three words together in the same phrase strike fear in the hearts of free-thinking citizens of any land. I see no way that a system of checks-and-balances would naturally arise to limit the power of these agencies in the society you propose.
*Let's get down to brass tacks about dispute resolution. The primary form of it in any human society is violence, in one form or another. In any society those who have more leverage to bring to bear will win - the dispute will resolve in their favor because they have the ability to coerce the other party into complying. This is the essence of class warfare. This is the essence of wars between nations. This is the essence of lawsuits. To quote the great philosopher Jack Sparrow, "it's about what a man can do, and what he can't do." You mentioned elsewhere that you reject the idea of international embargoes as coercion; I assert that without the means to influence the other sovereign entity to stop they will not. No contract will absolutely prevent one part from bringing to bear what force they have available if they choose to break their contract. No treaty will prevent a nation from declaring war and forcefully annexing the land and resources of another. Pretending otherwise ignores both human nature and all of human history.
I'm out of time; I'll write some more later. Feel free to reply to what I've already written in the mean time, there's more than enough of it :P
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday March 31 2017, @11:01PM
A dispute is the lack of a contract (explicit or otherwise); a dispute is people engaging in behavior that is not well defined, and thus entails outcomes that are not well defined (and are therefore dangerous).
Real life isn't 'well defined'. You can spend your whole life thinking about just one of the more intractable problems society struggles with and not have a 'well defined' answer that everyone can agree on. Meanwhile, people still have to live.
The vast bulk of contemporary "law" is already a matter of contracts, but there is still not yet a solid appreciation for the sanctity of such contract "law",
You aren't allowed to set fire to the local school this afternoon. I am not allowed to set fire to the school. My neighbor isn't allowed to set fire to school. The 'contract' in place their is one sided, and not negotiable.
"due to the fact that people believe it is good and proper for a government's dictatorial "law" to override anything at any time"
The governments dictatorial law is fundementally a representation of the will of the people. Its not imposed on us by government, WE are a self governing nation through representative democracy. Its flawed. Its corrupt. And you are welcome to suggest improvements. But you are fundamentally wrong to think the 'contract' is imposed. It is collectively self-imposed.
"that lack of stability renders every contract suspect (maybe this year it's "legal" to sell beer, but maybe the next year it won't be;"
Again, that is merely a manifestation of the representative democracy collectively agreeing to change the rule.
not only a party to the contract but also a party that has the power to make unilateral alterations; that is no contract at all,
The government isn't a separate entity from the governed. The government doesn't make unilateral alterations, we direct the government to make the alterations we want it to make. (Albeit through a flawed and corrupt system but nevertheless, that is the ideal being reached for.)
It is already widely understood that a monopoly is probably a bad idea,
What? Since when? For lots of things it is already widely understood that a monopoly is the best idea. How do you envision your 'contract' system work without a court system? Will you have competing courts that each offer their own rules and procedures? And the parties in any dispute or breach of contract then can shop around for the one that suits them? What if two courts issue contrary rulings? Will you have a superior court? Uh.oh... that sounds like a monopoloy... maybe a bunch of competing superior courts that ... wait... how does that solve anything??
especially a monopoly that is imposed violently.
Being born forcibly subjects you to the society you are born into; and your parents will speak for you when called upon. You can say its a bad thing but that's not going to change anything. Babies aren't going to negotiate new contracts with the society they are born into. And as always when you reach the point in your life where you self determine, you are free to renounce your citizenship and go somewhere else. The only flaw with that plan is that the world is finite and largely claimed by one society or another... but that's not the fault of any one society or other.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 31 2017, @10:15PM
And when Captain Murphy declares Martian law and the the Knights of Phobos start going upside you head with their bats?
What then, huh? WHAT THEN?!?!?
Oh yeah, a birthday party (bitch)!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 01 2017, @05:38AM
The Social Contract [wikipedia.org]