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...
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.
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.