Direct democracy on every issue is impractical. Every person cannot read every single bill and vote on it. Thus representative democracy or a democratic republic is much more practical. Maybe initially on Mars with less than a few hundred people, but a million people will need representative government.
The Martian government was directed by ten men, the leader of whom was elected by universal suffrage for five years and entitled "Elon." Two houses of Parliament enacted the laws to be administered by the Elon and his cabinet.
Democracy is an inappropriate model for Mars governance. Hell. It's an inappropriate model for governance on Earth. Even democratic tenets are troublesome.
Just to put in my word before this thread get canned: Yes, you can setup your own personal representative. Personal digital assistant is already on the horizon, it's not hard to imagine by the time Mars is colonized, you can have an personal wearable AI monitoring your every move/speech/online posting and deduce your political leanings from your behavior and vote accordingly for you, once a while it can let you confirm the vote in order to calibrate its actions.
Elon has been spending too much time with a lot of smart people, he should come down, talk to average Joe and understand that most people are not smart enough for direct democracy to work.
Tough environments, where life is precarious, require at least technocratic ruling, perhaps even military ruling.Direct democracy does not work because it assumes an average level of intelligence that does not exist. Elon has been spending too much time with a lot of smart people, he should come down, talk to average Joe and understand that most people are not smart enough for direct democracy to work.
Quote from: IRobot on 12/25/2017 03:04 pmElon has been spending too much time with a lot of smart people, he should come down, talk to average Joe and understand that most people are not smart enough for direct democracy to work.Well, it wont be average Joes going to Mars..
But let me suggest the evidence that US "Voting machines" have been shown to have very poor security and the poor build quality of much modern software should give any sensible person pause for a lot of thought.The vote you key into your app might not be the one that shows up on the totalizer.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 12/25/2017 03:27 pmBut let me suggest the evidence that US "Voting machines" have been shown to have very poor security and the poor build quality of much modern software should give any sensible person pause for a lot of thought.The vote you key into your app might not be the one that shows up on the totalizer.Im extremely suspicious of electronic voting machines, and moreso of the motivation to move to them.
Quote from: AC in NC on 12/25/2017 02:35 amDemocracy is an inappropriate model for Mars governance. Hell. It's an inappropriate model for governance on Earth. Even democratic tenets are troublesome.Somebody much cleverer than you and I put together said the following: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/267224-democracy-is-the-worst-form-of-government-except-for-all
Mars will not be served well by governance influenced by democracy in anything other than very tightly controlled circumstances. At heart, democracy is nothing other than mob rule.
As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall. When it is necessary to march out to war, they pay troops and stay at home: when it is necessary to meet in council, they name deputies and stay at home. By reason of idleness and money, they end by having soldiers to enslave their country and representatives to sell it.
The moment a people allows itself to be represented, it is no longer free.
A minus would be who gets to vote. Under US law, that would be restricted to US citizens, a situation unfair to Mars residents from other countries. One way to avoid that would be to consider the settlement like a homeowners association with SpaceX as the management company. As anyone who has dealt with a HOA knows, that would be a terrible idea.Looks like there needs to be some changes to international law before a Mars settlement can have the type of government they want.
As the old saying goes, let's not get the cart before the horse.Without changes in international law, the Outer Space Treaty will apply. Since SpaceX operates in the United States, any Mars base or settlement created by SpaceX will be subject to US federal law. So, individuals at a SpaceX-based settlement will not be able to do whatever they wish.Interesting thing about the US government, local issues are up to the states. How does that apply to a Mars settlement? Since it can't be run as a territory (not under the OST), I guess there would be a lot of leeway for the locals as long as they don't do anything considered unconstitutional. That's a plus.A minus would be who gets to vote. Under US law, that would be restricted to US citizens, a situation unfair to Mars residents from other countries. One way to avoid that would be to consider the settlement like a homeowners association with SpaceX as the management company. As anyone who has dealt with a HOA knows, that would be a terrible idea.Looks like there needs to be some changes to international law before a Mars settlement can have the type of government they want.
Quote from: RonM on 12/25/2017 05:01 pmA minus would be who gets to vote. Under US law, that would be restricted to US citizens, a situation unfair to Mars residents from other countries. One way to avoid that would be to consider the settlement like a homeowners association with SpaceX as the management company. As anyone who has dealt with a HOA knows, that would be a terrible idea.Looks like there needs to be some changes to international law before a Mars settlement can have the type of government they want.Couldn't this be just like rules within a corporation that only apply to the execution of that corporation? These people may still have a vote in US elections, but that could be independent of any internal corporate structure.I know zilch about HOA, so if that creates an impediment to the above it would be interesting to hear about.
Quote from: RonM on 12/25/2017 05:01 pmAs the old saying goes, let's not get the cart before the horse.Without changes in international law, the Outer Space Treaty will apply. Since SpaceX operates in the United States, any Mars base or settlement created by SpaceX will be subject to US federal law. So, individuals at a SpaceX-based settlement will not be able to do whatever they wish.Interesting thing about the US government, local issues are up to the states. How does that apply to a Mars settlement? Since it can't be run as a territory (not under the OST), I guess there would be a lot of leeway for the locals as long as they don't do anything considered unconstitutional. That's a plus.A minus would be who gets to vote. Under US law, that would be restricted to US citizens, a situation unfair to Mars residents from other countries. One way to avoid that would be to consider the settlement like a homeowners association with SpaceX as the management company. As anyone who has dealt with a HOA knows, that would be a terrible idea.Looks like there needs to be some changes to international law before a Mars settlement can have the type of government they want.Spoken like a true Earthman... First of all, The Outer Space Treaty is a primitive attempt of those on this planet to 'claim' OUTER SPACE as if in their pitiful small minds and curiously expanded egos they could claim The Universe. Pitiful in their hubris, pitiful in their impotence. Without enforcement, the Treaty is a sham.Whomever heads out and risks their blood and treasure will be entitled to whatever chunk of OUTER SPACE they can reach. China, for example will just laugh if someone waves the Outer Space Treaty when they go claim a chunk of whatever...
Direct democracy on every issue is impractical. Every person cannot read every single bill and vote on it. ....
...I thought this thread was about near future reality, not science fiction....
I live in Switzerland, which is the one country in the world probably coming closest to a Direct Democracy. >We vote on issues up to four times a year (if there are enough brought up), and re-elect the parliment every four years. Only issues which get 100k votes, or bills passed by the parliment which are subsequently opposed by 50k votes are brought up for a vote (tital population is now about 8.5M). >
But I like the idea of "entrusting" someone of your choice with your vote, while retaining the option of voting differently if necessary. You could perhaps also entrust one person with your, say, foreign policy vote, and another with your vote on worker rights. Or you could opt out and not vote at all. It would be election by reputation, and the persons representing the most votes could have regular meetings to exchange viewpoints. The actual votes can the be scheduled to occur a couple of times per year so you have time to study the issues and dwcide if you want to vote or just go with what the person you entrusted with your vote thinks.
Quote from: Bynaus on 12/25/2017 04:32 pmBut I like the idea of "entrusting" someone of your choice with your vote, while retaining the option of voting differently if necessary. You could perhaps also entrust one person with your, say, foreign policy vote, and another with your vote on worker rights. Or you could opt out and not vote at all. It would be election by reputation, and the persons representing the most votes could have regular meetings to exchange viewpoints. The actual votes can the be scheduled to occur a couple of times per year so you have time to study the issues and dwcide if you want to vote or just go with what the person you entrusted with your vote thinks.That is a loophole, if vote is not secret, or worst, can be entrusted, it means the voting will be controlled by patriarchs/matriarchs/boss.
Who says you're entrusting your whole vote to the same person?If I support Bernie on healthcare and women's rights but the NRA rep on gun control, that's a more nuanced position than "Straight ticket vote" even though it's still representative.
Participation however is way down, typically 25-50%.
Engineers should stick to Engineering.Politics is for those who like people and understand that all surprises cannot be engineered out but should be embraced as inevitable and to some extent be welcomed.
>But... Remember that The Orville episode where they have a kind of direct democracy where everyone is voted on? It's like our social media platforms taken to the extreme. >
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/26/2017 05:07 am>But... Remember that The Orville episode where they have a kind of direct democracy where everyone is voted on? It's like our social media platforms taken to the extreme. >Orville S01E07 “Majority Rule,” a cautionary tale for direct democracy and conformity/PC advocates.
I suspect you didn't read ENOUGH Heinlein, actually. Or didn't pay attention.
Quote from: Lar on 12/27/2017 12:27 pmI suspect you didn't read ENOUGH Heinlein, actually. Or didn't pay attention.“Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.” >"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
“Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.” >"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
A Mars colony will be the most despotic dictatorship ever. With any luck, it will be a benevolent despotic dictatorship, but it will be a dictatorship, nonetheless. This is a result of not being able to survive a nude walkabout for even 3 minutes. Everything it takes to survive beyond a few minutes will have to be, at least initially, imported from Earth. Returning to Earth is at the colonial agency's discretion, as is everything else. The colonial agency will have absolute life-or-death power over every person on Mars. Even a unanimous vote could be completely overturned in a matter of minutes (all ventilation, power and water shut off until populace changes its mind, for example).There can be no true freedom in any environment where the discontent cannot walk nude over the hill with their hand raised flipping the bird to the government they left behind, living off the land using only their wits and hands.Note, I am NOT predicting that Elon will grow a god complex and use Mars as his personal slave plantation. Just pointing out that based on Earthly experiences, Mars will be a precarious location vis-a-vis personal freedom.
Heinlein is NOT a good template to use. He had some strong authoritarian and militaristic tendencies. His pro-militarism stance is in spite of, and maybe because of the fact that although he joined the military, he was only in for a few years and never went to war.
Every section of the colony has it's own air and water recycling facilities or at the very least large buffer of several weeks.That way you don't get a situation like in Total Recall where a central authority could turn off the air and force people into compliance.
You won't survive more than a hour or so at the most walking around nude outside during the dead of winter in Iceland or Norway these are not dictatorships.
History has shown that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient, (king, emperor, or such). However, once they die the empire or country is thrown into problems. The next leader may be weak or evil.
History has shown that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient, (king, emperor, or such).
Quote from: spacenut on 12/28/2017 02:42 amHistory has shown that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient, (king, emperor, or such).War economies are the most efficient, look at the incredible production in the 2nd world war from all sides and political systems.Not that I'm advocating a war economy, there needs to be an existential threat and it would probably be unsustainable on timescales of a decade or more.
What I'd suggest early on is democratic socialism in that most stuff is collectively owned but that everyone has a say and all officials are elected and serve a limited term.There would be some limited capitalism.Think maybe like living in an eco village or arcology like Arcosanti.In theory this could be evolved to a semi direct democracy something similar to the that in Switzerland or even a republic like in Finland as the colony grows.
I think the beginnings of real settlement (beyond expeditionary outposts created by public and/or private initiative) will be when private ownership of 'stuff' begins. Collectivism is antithetical to the US essence and certainly Musk's way of thinking, IMO.
It's not necessarily anti ethical to the US essence as collectives and communes do exist within the US.It's pretty much a necessity for a small autonomous society.
IIRC, the American experience with collectivism has been almost uniformly disastrous. Most notably, the Pilgrims at Plymouth nearly wiped themselves out by collectivizing agriculture at a time when they were a small colony living on the edge of starvation. Roughly half of them died of starvation and diseases caused by it before they abandoned collective agriculture and started allowing families to keep the produce of their own labor. See also early Communist China and many other experiments associated with Communism.The lesson seems to be that the impulse to respond to the harshness of a frontier by exerting tight control over individuals' labor is a road to deadly failure.
QuoteIt's not necessarily anti ethical to the US essence as collectives and communes do exist within the US.It's pretty much a necessity for a small autonomous society.IIRC, the American experience with collectivism has been almost uniformly disastrous. Most notably, the Pilgrims at Plymouth nearly wiped themselves out by collectivizing agriculture at a time when they were a small colony living on the edge of starvation. Roughly half of them died of starvation and diseases caused by it before they abandoned collective agriculture and started allowing families to keep the produce of their own labor. See also early Communist China and many other experiments associated with Communism.The lesson seems to be that the impulse to respond to the harshness of a frontier by exerting tight control over individuals' labor is a road to deadly failure.
Everything it takes to survive beyond a few minutes will have to be, at least initially, imported from Earth. Returning to Earth is at the colonial agency's discretion, as is everything else. The colonial agency will have absolute life-or-death power over every person on Mars. Even a unanimous vote could be completely overturned in a matter of minutes (all ventilation, power and water shut off until populace changes its mind, for example).
However, the Nordic countries (just about the closest analogue to the Martian environment) are uniformly social democracies, mixed economies, i.e. Capitalist economic core with large socialist safety nets. There's a high degree of cooperation, not the caricature of libertarian individualism nor the strict, authoritarian communism or fascism of Soviet Union, the Axis Powers, or even the wartime Allied powers.Iceland as a model may work fairly well. Key is building a common culture, I think, ala Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy.
Quote from: laszlo on 12/26/2017 02:50 pmEverything it takes to survive beyond a few minutes will have to be, at least initially, imported from Earth. Returning to Earth is at the colonial agency's discretion, as is everything else. The colonial agency will have absolute life-or-death power over every person on Mars. Even a unanimous vote could be completely overturned in a matter of minutes (all ventilation, power and water shut off until populace changes its mind, for example).This point is going to end up being behind everything. No matter what social organisation goes on if it can be undone at a moments notice by an individual then it is not going to last.The American founders spent a lot of effort trying to make the political system intrinsically democratic. You can't be despotic without first being voted to be so. If Martians want to make their system intrinsically democratic they will have to include the physical environment too. It must be made impossible for an individual to destroy the colony. The design, construction, software must all be aware of the extra goal of only allowing the wishes of the majority.This will mean inefficiency and overhead in construction and function. But that is what a democracy(and capitalism) is: inefficient in service to a goal.So the talk of benevolent dictatorship and having a crew mentality is going to be unavoidable because in the beginning that will be what the technology embodies. Democracy starts in the design phase or it won't be available. I'm thinking it will be centuries before our moral and technical abilities are up to the task. But democracy has been a long march and so will this.
You do want to avoid a situation like in total recall where they shut off air to part of the colony.