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: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @05:56PM (9 children)
Like everything else since the conquest of America, it belongs to Putin. Ask him permission before going there, and be prepared to pay a hefty fee.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday March 31 2017, @06:23PM (6 children)
Why the hell would Americans want Mars? The atmosphere won't allow guns to fire or beer to ferment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 31 2017, @07:25PM
Most people ferment indoors. As for guns, Martians will conceal carry railguns.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by mhajicek on Friday March 31 2017, @08:01PM (3 children)
Common misconception. Gunpowder is a mix of both fuel and oxidizer, and requires no atmosphere. Guns work underwater and in a vacuum.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Friday March 31 2017, @09:21PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday March 31 2017, @10:58PM (1 child)
The Mighty Buzzard is well aware of the impossibility of these tasks!
Interesting speculation, that the TMB could be aware of something that does not exist. De gustibus non disputandum est!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 01 2017, @12:32AM
Interesting speculation, that the TMB could be aware of something that does not exist.
My argument is a paragon of mathematical rigor. You will never see a better argument ever.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday April 01 2017, @12:35AM
Why would Americans want Mars, you ask?
Three-boobed women. [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday March 31 2017, @06:34PM (1 child)
Well it is the RED planet so it makes sense.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday March 31 2017, @11:04PM
Well it is the RED planet so it makes sense.
It's almost a pale pinot red...
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:04PM (5 children)
We have plenty of precedence right here on this rock.
It will be owned by the person with the biggest guns.
Well, let me add one other thing. It will be owned by the person who can repel kinetic weapons dropped from orbit.
History is full of examples. One people live here. Another people come along with bigger guns. Now the people with the bigger guns live here.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 31 2017, @07:16PM
At first Mars might be owned by whoever can actually make the trip there.
One of their first considerations might be how to hang on to their staked out land and resources. The planet is big enough that it would be a while before enough people arrived before it runs out of land. By that point there may be some form of government. Because of the high cost of crossing I can also see a future for "indentured servants".
Whoever gets there early might want to be thinking about how they would repel invaders to their homes.
The Electoral College voting is an affirmative action program for low populated states.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 31 2017, @08:04PM (2 children)
It will be owned by the person who can repel kinetic weapons dropped from orbit.
Not sure whether your answer to this rhetorical question is "no one."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday April 01 2017, @04:42PM (1 child)
Actually, the first person who develops a kinetic weapon system might figure it would be in their best interests to make sure that no one else develops one too. In which case, they'll pretty much own whatever they feel like owning.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 03 2017, @03:02PM
Yeah, but even they wouldn't be able to resist orbital bombardment if somebody manages to jack the system.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday March 31 2017, @08:06PM
I marked you"insightful", but that will only be true once the colony is self sufficient. Until then it will be controlled by those who provide resupply.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(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 Electoral College voting is an affirmative action program for low populated states.
(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]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday March 31 2017, @06:08PM (2 children)
> Who will own Mars, and how will it be governed
Nobody, because it's a lump of rock that requires you to get constant resupplies from Earth to survive on.
Launching those supplies could be interrupted by any major power who isn't happy, so everyone will either have to play nice and share.
Or start a war until someone's supply runs can be made immune to interference, either with a new way to send stuff out, or by destroying everyone's orbital missiles.
Alternatively, humans could stop being so fucking greedy that we have to figure out who owns said lump of inhospitable rock, its Exclusive Economic Zone, and the Oil beneath.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 31 2017, @06:42PM
Nobody, because it's a lump of rock that requires you to get constant resupplies from Earth to survive on.
That is incorrect. The Moon is in that situation of requiring supply with really strong scarcity of hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon. Mars has every element in sufficiently ample quantity, such as the basics (C, H, O, N, S, P, Fe, etc) that a single colony could get all elements needed for plant and animal life from the local environment (C, O, N from atmosphere; H, O, S, Cl, Na, Mg, Ca, K from ground water/ice and dissolved salts; P, Fe, C, Na, Mg, Ca, K from meteorites).
Further, Earth is not the only source for resupply when resupply is needed. It would take far less reaction mass, for example, to ship water from Phobos, a small moon of Mars to the Moon than from Earth.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Friday March 31 2017, @06:47PM
Nobody, because it's a lump of rock that requires you to get constant resupplies from Earth to survive on.
That's not necessarily true. At first, definitely. But in theory, eventually a Mars colony could become self-sustaining. There's water there, and sunlight, and presumably a decent amount of natural resources to mine. It's dubious of course, as there's not much of an atmosphere, it's a little far from the Sun so it's pretty dim (meaning PV won't work that great and will need significantly greater area), it's pretty darn cold (so you'll need even more area for capturing solar energy for heating), but it could probably be done, eventually.
Personally, I'm not sure what the allure is. It's definitely an interesting place to explore for scientific purposes. But it'd suck living there. And if you just want to do mining, you'll probably get a much better return for your investment by grabbing asteroids nearer to Earth. If I controlled scads of money and could personally make a decision about how to spend so much money that it could fund a serious Mars colonization effort, I wouldn't spend it there, I'd built a giant rotating space station in a Lagrangian point orbit near the Earth, and work on (before the space station construction) asteroid and maybe Moon mining for getting the raw materials. You're going to have to build a sealed, artificial habitat on Mars anyway for humans, so why do you even need the planet? My space station will have a full 1g of gravity, something that's impossible on Mars. And inhabitants can take a vacation to Hawaii with just a couple days of travel time each way.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:10PM
You asked, I answered. This is not trolling, jerks.
-------
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: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:16PM
You asked, I answered. This is not trolling, jerks. YOU make it redundant by forcing my hand.
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: 2) by Spook brat on Friday March 31 2017, @06:18PM
The answer to this question will be, as it has always been, "whoever is standing on it".
By necessity, the habitations of these colonists will be defended against uninvited guests or will become someone else's home instead. Similarly, mines and other real estate will belong to those who create them to the extent that the creators are capable of preventing them from being taken by others.
As far as who will be in charge, regardless of politics the people living on Mars will do whatever they need to in order to stay alive. There may be consequences in terms of how much Earth is willing to deal with/support them afterwards, but rebellion and self-government will always be a choice for them. [existentialcomics.com] The likelihood of Mars colonist not eventually forming a self-organized Mars government seems remote to me, especially once the colony is fully self-sufficient. I can imagine an extreme scenario where Earth governments suddenly decide to embargo a Mars freight vessel and deny landing rights on Earth, but I wouldn't want to be downhill in the gravity well when that tea party starts.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:21PM
Good lord!
This must be the stupid question of THE year.
Like everything, it belongs to the person or brainwashed group of people who do the
leaders bidding, who have THE BIGGEST GUNS!
sheesh.
Of course once in a while the leadership inbreeds and the offspring is just a cripple and thus unfit to do the required brain gymnastics to keep the enslaved populace docile. This is when thd ownership of the guns chance hands but not before denanding its fair share in bloid as payment.
The unique thing about mars is that it ia a virgin to the MAD doctrine thus the smart owner of mars will see to it that he or she is and stays the only owner of atomic weapons, thus needing the capability to nuke any ... or further nukes trying to "land" on mars intact or otherwise ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:26PM (1 child)
Mars has already been spoken for, I already keep bunch of my stuff there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:45PM
I see London, I see France I see Mars' underpants!
(since you seem to be in a childish mode)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday March 31 2017, @06:26PM
But there's another important question which isn't getting much attention:
Who will own Mars, and how will it be governed?
Why ask questions for which you can't have answers at present? We really don't know what the problems will be like till we have actual colonization efforts underway. Further, making decisions of ownership now will merely constrain our future actions for no gain by creating unnecessary obstacles and conflicts.
The Mars colonization project is driven by the ultra rich.
What Mars colonization project? The only person or organization mentioned was Elon Musk. He's probably "ultra rich", but he's just one person without any concrete plans for Mars colonization at the moment. The only efforts going on right now are a few exploration prestige missions by national space programs and some token (and probably fraudulent) theater (like Mars One). No projects here.
My view is that the only thing that really makes sense is the first person or group to make significant use of a location, owns that location (a practice in the US which is called "claim staking" [wikipedia.org]) perhaps combined with some moderate long term tax on the productivity of the claim payable to every person.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:30PM (6 children)
You asked, so I answered. This is not trolling, jerks. YOU make it redundant by forcing my hand.
=======
It's time to start constructing intricate, fine-grained, well-defined contracts between individuals. No more of this "Goverment can change the rules at any time" nonsense.
The future will be built on agreement, not politics.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:35PM (1 child)
Politics... You will agree with us or we'll cut off your supplies, close the bridge, and build a wall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:49PM
Nobody wants to be robbed in an alley.
Even people who don't like each other agree that being robbed in an alley is undesirable; there is not only philosophical common ground in preventing such coercion, but there is indeed a market for preventing and punishing such coercion.
The fact that you and others can envision that frightening situation suggests that you'll band together in a way that reduces the chances of it coming to pass (and to prevent abuse, there will be separation of powers, which is best implemented as competition within the market). The key is to take that banding together to its limit, from the level of interactions between nation states all the way down to the protection of individuals, as determined by well-defined contracts.
A government is not some magical thing; it does not solve the problem you present—indeed, a government is usually the perpetrator of such coercion; just recently it was reported that in one year, police in the U.S. have conficated more property than all criminal thefts combined. As with any problem, it is not only the case that the market can find a solution, but it will have the highest probability of finding the better (if not the best) solution for the given conditions at hand; allow people to make bets on the best way to live, and provide enough time to see the results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:38PM
Actually you did not answer. Who will own Mras? You say: "It's time to start constructing intricate, fine-grained, well-defined contracts between individuals. No more of this "Goverment can change the rules at any time" nonsense."
I'm not sure "It's time to start constructing intricate, fine-grained, well-defined contracts between individuals. No more of this "Goverment can change the rules at any time" nonsense." is ready to try out ownership, for a non-corporeal entity that sentence sure is ambitious!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 31 2017, @07:55PM
YOU make it redundant by forcing my hand.
Nobody is forcing you to post the exact same thing three times. If we don't agree with you the first time, that means you need to post it again? :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 31 2017, @09:35PM
by forcing my hand.
I find it perverse that you engage in the sort of behavior that would destroy a libertarian society, if it were widely practiced.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 31 2017, @09:37PM
by forcing my hand.
So... coercion has now been reduced to mean merely disagreeing with you. I see this utopia will progress swimmingly until the moment someone disagrees with your grand vision. Particularly since your actions on SoylentNews are so disagreeable. If you want a society where libertarian values hold, then why not practice what you preach and stop spamming SoylentNews?
I find it perverse that you engage in the sort of behavior that would destroy a libertarian society, if it were widely practiced.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @06:32PM (1 child)
Tumang see a thing an think he can own it. But he will never own this out here, this is beltalowda. To pochuye ke?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @08:18PM
To pochuye ke, Tumang. To pochuye greftakamlor ke. Tambak
(Score: 1) by lcall on Friday March 31 2017, @06:59PM (1 child)
I'm sure it can be solved, given the will to cooperate (always the question, no?). I'm under the impression that there are people whose legal career includes consulting to those at a point of writing a new constitution, on what kinds of constitutional principles best apply to their specific situations. I remember reading about one of them from BYU I think, consulting in, maybe think it was, the Arab world. But without some measure of honesty and unselfishness it would of course be very difficult to manage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:07PM
cf. ftp://121.17.126.74/data1/ts01/english/novel/batch001/20100511205526916.pdf [121.17.126.74]
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:00PM (2 children)
Contracts that are actually well defined [soylentnews.org]
It's time to start constructing intricate, fine-grained, well-defined contracts between individuals. No more of this "Goverment can change the rules at any time" nonsense.
The future will be built on agreement, not politics.
"Future will be built on agreement, not politics" [soylentnews.org]
Politics... You will agree with us or we'll cut off your supplies, close the bridge, and build a wall.
That's coercion. Same as being robbed in an alley. [soylentnews.org]
Nobody wants to be robbed in an alley.
Even people who don't like each other agree that being robbed in an alley is undesirable; there is not only philosophical common ground in preventing such coercion, but there is indeed a market for preventing and punishing such coercion.
The fact that you and others can envision that frightening situation suggests that you'll band together in a way that reduces the chances of it coming to pass (and to prevent abuse, there will be separation of powers, which is best implemented as competition within the market). The key is to take that banding together to its limit, from the level of interactions between nation states all the way down to the protection of individuals, as determined by well-defined contracts.
A government is not some magical thing; it does not solve the problem you present—indeed, a government is usually the perpetrator of such coercion; just recently it was reported that in one year, police in the U.S. have conficated more property than all criminal thefts combined. As with any problem, it is not only the case that the market can find a solution, but it will have the highest probability of finding the better (if not the best) solution for the given conditions at hand; allow people to make bets on the best way to live, and provide enough time to see the results.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 31 2017, @07:43PM
Any anarchy will require a government to insure that the person with the biggest guns does not coerce people. (Anarchy means "no hierarchy", not "no government".)
Voluntary contracts are an implementation detail that would require some kind of neutral third party to adjudicate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Spook brat on Friday March 31 2017, @08:13PM
Please stop creating new sub-threads. There are people here willing to make the effort to engage with you, and you're making it hard for them by scattering the discussion all over the page.
This summary post, for example, would be more welcome as a child of your original post [soylentnews.org] than down here. Less likely to be marked redundant, anyhow, especially if prefaced with a statement that you're summarizing your own various sub-threads to re-focus the conversation. We're not censoring you, we're asking you to be easier to talk to.
Like it or not, in this community reposting the same info in multiple sub-threads is unwelcome because it pollutes the discussion space. Many browse at threshold 0 to let moderation help them avoid spam and other noise; I do not because I like to watch out for moderation abuse and reverse it where I can. I'll be plain with you and let you know that your posting habits are polluting the forum and I find them unwelcome.
How about this? I'll make a contract with you:
On your part, agree to keep your comments on topic; meaning, create one sub-tread for each article where you tie in a discussion of contractual libertarian society building and keep to that thread unless someone brings it up in another thread. Also avoid repeating yourself unless it's in reply to the original content and (preferably) repeated in a quote tag or otherwise set apart from the new content (there should be new content in a new post).
On my part, I'll agree not to mod your posts redundant as long as you keep your part of the contract.
Deal?
*disclaimer: I am not responsible for the behavior of other mods.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday March 31 2017, @07:07PM (1 child)
Initially, the companies that send people there. Whatever international treaties say, it will be companies, because modern governments are incapable of thinking past the next election cycle. But that doesn't matter in the long term.
Why? Because long-term, Mars is too far away for Earth to impose anything Mars doesn't want. Once any colonies are capable of producing whatever they need locally, the game will be up, and they will be functionally independent.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @08:12PM
The next election cycle is still longer than the next quarterly earnings update.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:12PM (2 children)
Censorship is unacceptable.
Contracts that are actually well defined [soylentnews.org]
It's time to start constructing intricate, fine-grained, well-defined contracts between individuals. No more of this "Goverment can change the rules at any time" nonsense.
The future will be built on agreement, not politics.
"Future will be built on agreement, not politics" [soylentnews.org]
Politics... You will agree with us or we'll cut off your supplies, close the bridge, and build a wall.
That's coercion. Same as being robbed in an alley. [soylentnews.org]
Nobody wants to be robbed in an alley.
Even people who don't like each other agree that being robbed in an alley is undesirable; there is not only philosophical common ground in preventing such coercion, but there is indeed a market for preventing and punishing such coercion.
The fact that you and others can envision that frightening situation suggests that you'll band together in a way that reduces the chances of it coming to pass (and to prevent abuse, there will be separation of powers, which is best implemented as competition within the market). The key is to take that banding together to its limit, from the level of interactions between nation states all the way down to the protection of individuals, as determined by well-defined contracts.
A government is not some magical thing; it does not solve the problem you present—indeed, a government is usually the perpetrator of such coercion; just recently it was reported that in one year, police in the U.S. have conficated more property than all criminal thefts combined. As with any problem, it is not only the case that the market can find a solution, but it will have the highest probability of finding the better (if not the best) solution for the given conditions at hand; allow people to make bets on the best way to live, and provide enough time to see the results.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:27PM
How to avoid getting modded down: Don't make duplicate posts. Reply to the original thread with your additional arguments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 01 2017, @12:36AM
Dude, what is wrong with you? Have you been exposed to too many chemtrails in the weather war, or did you venture beyond the Antarctic ice wall to the todash darkness where you were driven mad?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:32PM
it belongs to the martians.
Earthers may THINK they own it, but they will find out that they really dont.
(Score: 1) by DmT on Friday March 31 2017, @07:34PM (2 children)
Just seed life to the planet. Send microbes or any other living organisms, until something sticks and starts growing.
After that it will be much nicer to colonize.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 31 2017, @08:15PM (1 child)
If that were going to work, it probably would have already happened with meteor impacts causing fragments from Earth to hit Mars. Just as we have Martian origin material on Earth.
Granted, we could give bacteria a posh billion dollar ride in a craft with plenty of atmosphere and food, and then dump a slurry onto the Martian surface. But it doesn't look like they will be able to do much when they get there.
The best places to look for life in the solar system could be the subsurface liquid water oceans [wikipedia.org], of which there could be hundreds. They don't even need tidal heating to exist, so they could be found on undiscovered dwarf planets in orbits that take them hundreds of AU away from the Sun, making them currently undiscovered.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by DmT on Friday March 31 2017, @09:03PM
I don't think that life is elsewhere in the solar system, because the possible quantities of diffrent bacteria that might have gotten on other planets is fairly limited. Its the job of the human race to spread life elsewhere.
Mars seems to be an interesting candidate. Maybe in some caves or polar regions.
In extreme case sent them to Venus.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @08:55PM (1 child)
n/t
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 01 2017, @12:39AM
Let's have a death battle!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 01 2017, @02:59AM (1 child)
http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html [pdfernhout.net]
"Look at Project Virgle and "An Open Source Planet":
http://www.google.com/virgle/opensource.html [google.com]
Even just in jest some of the most financially obese people on the planet (who have built their company with thousands of servers all running GNU/Linux free software) apparently could not see any other possibility but seriously becoming even more financially obese off the free work of others on another planet (as well as saddling others with financial obesity too :-). And that jest came almost half a *century* after the "Triple Revolution" letter of 1964 about the growing disconnect between effort and productivity (or work and financial fitness):
http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm [educationanddemocracy.org]
Even not having completed their PhDs, the top Google-ites may well take many more *decades* to shake off that ideological discipline. I know it took me decades (and I am still only part way there. :-) As with my mother, no doubt Googlers have lived through periods of scarcity of money relative to their needs to survive or be independent scholars or effective agents of change. Is it any wonder they probably think being financially obese is a *good* thing, not an indication of either personal or societal pathology? :-("
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 01 2017, @04:24AM
That we as a society are not going to happily get to Mars or the Asteroids or other star systems, or even just fix up Space Ship Earth, until we come to see the love of money as the problem, not the solution.
I guess it's the old "Money is the root of all evil" fairy tale. Sure, money is a tool that can be abused, but quotes like the above display an abysmal understanding of what money is and why we use it. Money's key utility is in algorithmically simplify our trade. Elsewhere, the article indicates that the perceived problem is that money is a scarce commodity in a post-scarcity world.
So, the few in the world with money generally are so *seriously* :-) caught up in keeping it all or becoming even *more* pathologically financially obese, that they can't help the world transition to a post-scarcity (and humorous :-) economy either.
Somehow this is supposed to be a problem because people are thinking about money instead of the proper groupthink that post-scarcity economies supposedly would need.
How about we worry about real problems instead? People starving in the streets is a real problem. People paying for their food and shelter with money is not.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Saturday April 01 2017, @08:17AM
> look at TFS
> scroll through comments
> no owning uranus joke
maybe I messed with the threshold.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Saturday April 01 2017, @11:31AM
You all can have Mars. I'll have these asteroids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_asteroids#Largest_by_mass [wikipedia.org]
If I have to I'd settle for just Ceres and 16 Psyche.
Why are so many people so fixated on Mars? The gravity, atmosphere, etc are "wrong" so why put so much resources into such a significant gravity well?
Those vast tracts of land are unusable unless you cover them (for pressurization). Expensive. And where's the scientific evidence that humans can stay healthy long term in Mars gravity? Many claim to be willing to spend a lot on going to Mars but few seem interested and willing to pay to conduct such experiments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module [wikipedia.org]
It's harder to fake Earth gravity on the surface of Mars than it is to fake it in orbit. You might even be able to fake it on the surface of smaller asteroids that have very low gravity.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 01 2017, @03:25PM
Mars will be owned by whatever agreement the large power blocks on the Earth can agree upon. Look into how Svalbard and Antarctica is managed for examples. Same goes for international waters which even the movie The Martian [wikipedia.org] mentioned. Corporations and individuals will be subject to the laws and the interests of the nation they originate from.
Any party that bring out the guns onto anyone else can expect all parties to the agreement to jump on them for stepping out of line. Unless of course you have bigger guns than all Earthly power blocks together.
So it's most likely to be governed by international treaties until interplanetary business makes Earth irrelevant. But still when there's many parties they can see the benefit of agreeing on common rules and then any rouge one will feel all those guns whenever they try to take advantage of others. At present the Venezuela government mismanage the country and tries to monopolize power (guns) but the first response is that a lot of other countries call back their ambassadors so even countries will be punished for going rogue.
However one could wish that only peaceful nerds will be allowed to land :P
No business administrators, human resources, government, politicians, lawyers, military hawks etc.
Btw, To avoid inbreeding a population of at least 1000 persons is required. That translates into infrastructure demands.