SpaceX Will 'Make Its Own Laws On Mars' (independent.co.uk) 293
schwit1 writes: SpaceX will not recognize international law on Mars, according to the Terms of Service of its Starlink internet project. Elon Musk's space company will instead reportedly adhere to a set of "self-governing principles" that will be defined at the time of Martian settlement. Musk revealed plans to create a self-sustaining city on Mars last week, though no timeframe is yet to be put in place for its development. Any future colony created by SpaceX would likely use constellations of Starlink satellites orbiting the planet to provide internet connection to people and machines on the surface.
"For services provided on Mars, or in transit to Mars via Starship or other colonization spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities," the governing law section states. "Accordingly, disputes will be settled through self-governing principles, established in good faith, at the time of Martian settlement." Space systems engineer Erwan Beauvois said SpaceX's position was reminiscent of a declaration put forward by the Earthlight Foundation, a non-profit organization committed to preparing for the expansion of humanity beyond Earth. The Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Humanity in the Universe states that space should be "considered free, by all, for all and to all."
"For services provided on Mars, or in transit to Mars via Starship or other colonization spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities," the governing law section states. "Accordingly, disputes will be settled through self-governing principles, established in good faith, at the time of Martian settlement." Space systems engineer Erwan Beauvois said SpaceX's position was reminiscent of a declaration put forward by the Earthlight Foundation, a non-profit organization committed to preparing for the expansion of humanity beyond Earth. The Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Humanity in the Universe states that space should be "considered free, by all, for all and to all."
StarWars (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not Star Wars. More like "The Expanse". Great series. You should watch it when you get the chance. Makes Star Wars look kinda lame.
Better yet, read the books!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And good luck to them. No one has been there so it's their own jurisdiction. If you don't like that, take them on. It's how it's always been. Why would our path through space be any different from the history of taking new lands on Earth?
Because one would hope that after thousands of years of pointless warmongering on one planet, and finding that we somehow managed to stop that shit long enough to get to another planet, we would have fucking learned something about pointless warmongering.
Clearly, you didn't, and intelligent humans do NOT want to export that fucking ignorance. Now shut the fuck up, warmonger. I don't want to hear your damn cheerleading, and neither does the Earthlight Foundation. I hope we can somehow guarantee you and yo
Re: (Score:2)
"pointless warmongering" is how we got into space in the first place.
When humans stop competing and fighting we will cease to expand and improve, and inevitably wane to extinction.
Re: (Score:2)
There wasn't much actual fighting there in the sense of a traditional war, it was mostly about who could best prepare for a fight.
Also competition and fighting in the wider sense of a conflict can exists in other forms than just humans killing other humans.
While war is certainly a very strong motivator because it's about whether you live or die, a lot of very useful things were not invented because we needed them to kill each other, but because of other conf
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember correctly, that was the Cold War. There wasn't much actual fighting there in the sense of a traditional war, it was mostly about who could best prepare for a fight.
Yes, by pissing away trillions building up a nuclear arsenal that is capable of destroying an entire planet dozens of times over. Not exactly what I would define as an efficient use of funds as NASA starves, and dreams of space exploration are taken from our children, who were drafted and killed in senseless wars instead.
Mars colonization does not have to depend on manufactured Life and Death" shituations derived from nothing more than human greed that we're brainwashed into believing. Put another way, th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you're wrong for thinking people are warmongers. I do think that with your rhetoric, and invoking a group for peace while hoping people on Earth die, is a sign that you're no better than the ones you hate. Maybe you could temper your hate some and stop contributing to the same behavior you so passionately deride.
If there is a way to not label someone who hates hate, a hypocrite, please define it. Otherwise, recognize and understand the obvious Catch-22 that is rather unavoidable here.
To be accurate, Intelligence is hoping for Ignorance to die, not necessarily the humans who carry it. Unfortunately, that often requires human death because of a lack of intelligence. Some humans are simply incapable. We know this. Hell, we've created the Darwin Awards to ironically recognize that exact fault. There's your "tempe
Re: StarWars (Score:4, Interesting)
> Clearly, you didn't, and intelligent humans do NOT want to export that fucking ignorance.
How could human s possibly avoid exporting the seven deadly sins? Civilization _manages_ them, but without lust, gendered species do not procreate well, and that is built into the biology of mammals and much of the biological kingdom of "animalae". Greed, envy, and gluttony are even deeper rooted. Sloth is, even more common, not being active if an organism is not compelled by need goes right down to "archaobacteria". Wrath has very well documented hormonal roots, and strong links the dangerous motivation, fear, though fear is not normally listed as one of the deadly sins. Pride.... may require more sophistication, but certainly a sense of "turf" or territory is a common motivation among "animalae". Many animals have _status_, so many may also have pride.
I'm not sure whether your baneful repudiation of warmongering with wrathful, proud, and greedy demands is merely poorly expressed irony, but if a colony does not factor in some kind of regulation for even a small group, one gluttonous fool could kill them all. It would be safer to have a well defined set of rules, already proven to be at leas somewhat funcitonal, rather than to invent them from scratch in a _very_ busy colony.
Re: StarWars (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never heard of pointless warmongering except for maybe the occasional insane despot.
Warmongering almost always has an incredibly pointed objective, exactly the same one as capitalism in fact, and virtually every other -ism that has driven various successful societies on Earth: the accumulation of personal wealth and power.
And unfortunately a society can't simply turn away from war without becoming immensely vulnerable to those who embrace it. They have to maintain the capacity for defensive warfare if they wish to remain independent - and having such capacity presents an enormous temptation to reap a warmonger's bounty. Just look at the what happened to the USA, whose founders went out of their way to try to found a nation based on a strong defensive militia rather than a standing army.
Re: StarWars (Score:2)
Re: StarWars (Score:5, Interesting)
From the beginning? Not happening. You're looking at a very hostile environment, in which the people will be entirely dependent upon technology for survival - so they can't be independent until they have the complete chain of manufacturing to produce more of that technology, from mining to smelting to manufacture. They'll need to identify suitable locations for collecting silicon, build facilities to purify it, and semiconductor fabrication machines. Farms to turn the amble supply of carbon dioxide into plants, and chemical processing to turn that into bioplastic. Even assuming someone comes up with the trillions of dollars needed to establish a planned long-term settlement on mars, that settlement would be dependent upon a regular deliveries of spare parts, materials and general supplies for decades.
Re: StarWars (Score:5, Informative)
You're looking at a very hostile environment....that settlement would be dependent upon a regular deliveries of spare parts, materials and general supplies for decades.
Decades?
I think you underestimate how hostile Mars is.
Every time there's talk of settling on Mars there seems to be this 'settlers moving westward' mentality that people have. It's Antarctica cold, there's no air, there's no water, and there's no dirt. And the surface is poison.
I really don't think people understand how incredibly long supply chains are here on Earth. Creating and sustaining the ones needed for colonization on Mars is going to take generations.
Re: (Score:3)
Back in my comment I said, "Every time there's talk of settling on Mars there seems to be this 'settlers moving westward' mentality that people have."
Supply chains to America were months-long when Europeans settled here too.
No they weren't. The supply chains for air, water, construction materials, fuel, and food existed within the communities settling the continent. Farming, hunting, logging, and mining started up right away when people settled here. Breathing and drinking water were possible from second 1 when people landed.
Everything you said in your post applies only on earth!
Re: StarWars (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you actually read that history? Have we learned nothing?
It seems we, as a species, have learned very little. every empire throughout history dominated by violence, the threat of violence, and the theft of resources. Every empire ultimately collapses leaving it's people and their descendants to be dominated by the next empire. The US is just the latest empire to behave this way yet the citizens and government seem oblivious to many thousands of years of human history. The same cycle will repeat on Mars if it ever becomes a human settlement.
So no, humanity learned almost nothing about its own nature.
Re: (Score:3)
We've learned. But there's a HUGE difference between recognizing a problem, vs solving it. Two different things.
Re: StarWars (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually we've learned a great deal. The problem is that one of those lessons is "Violence is an effective means of accumulating wealth and power."
And sadly, I don't see any flaw in that lesson. Worse, the knowledge appears to be innate - even babies wield violence to get their way. It's not about what's right or good - it's about what works. And "violence works" is damned near a physical law of the universe.
Even if you engage in heavy brainwashing from a young age to instill a strong aversion to violence (though I'd say brainwashing itself is a form of violence) , it would have to be 100% effective to do the job. Even if 99.9% of everyone are committed pacifists, that just makes it all the easier for the aberrant 0.1% to wield violence against them if they haven't taken steps to defend themselves. And unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any realistic defense against violence except more violence. All the moral education in the world is useless in the face of somebody who has decided that they want your stuff, and that you have no way to stop them from taking it.
Which is a large part of the reason we have governments - it allows a society to band together and support some of their more violent members to engage in approved violence against outside threats. Not to mention providing a means for group-authorized violence against internal threats without risking the cycles of retribution that breed violent inter-generational feuds.
The problem of course, is that as society grows larger those enforcers end up answering to the leaders, rather than the people - and that offers a strong temptation for leaders to wield that violence for their own gain.
Re: (Score:3)
Every empire was fighting to end the fighting, they all wanted an end to the pointless warmongering and planned to live in peace and prosperity for ever once they just got rid of all their enemies. They all want an ordered society without the greed and stupidity. Every existing country defines itself as having a monopoly on violence because they want peace though non-violent means, and they will stop using violence as soon as they can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You put a bunch of humans together you a
Re: (Score:3)
The ISS is small and limited enough that it's feasible to screen everyone who goes there for personality, to cycle people out periodically, to prevent them from taking tools that are primarily weapons, to send people back to Earth if they break the rules, and to keep the population far below the Dunbar number.
A mission to Mars might be able to achieve the first of those dispute-limiting measures. It is Pollyanna-ish thinking to claim that Mars will be more similar to the ISS than to any larger-scale terres
Re: (Score:3)
HOA's in spaaaace.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just what we need, interplanetary HOA's foreclosing on your habitat because you haven't raked the sand lately. Space Karen's telling you to prove to them that you live there.
Better yet! Company planets, forcing settlers to buy products ONLY from the company store and only allowed to sell their ore/food/etc to the company.
Re: (Score:2)
And piracy. Because it won't just be SpaceX there, other outfits will be sending ships too.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that Musk uses stacked ranking in his companies one can predict that the law will not be the best that human society can offer and that things like slavery will be legal. Welcome to the first off planet dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a phony privilege (Score:4, Interesting)
Where "all" means all who can afford to go there. An easy philosophy to accept, if you happen to be a billionaire who owns a spaceship company.
Odd, the non-rich could travel to the US (Score:2)
Where "all" means all who can afford to go there. An easy philosophy to accept, if you happen to be a billionaire who owns a spaceship company.
Own a spaceship or buy a ticket on a spaceship. The latter gets cheaper over time. Much like so many US immigrants bought a ticket on an ocean going ship. Hint: many of them were what one might describe as not "rich".
Re: (Score:2)
Given how expensive every single launch from Earth into orbit still is, it'll take some miracle (like a working space elevator, or some kind of cold fusion drive) to bring the cost down enough for passenger flight.
At some point we'll probably get there if we manage to overcome scarcity issues. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Re:Odd, the non-rich could travel to the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Not at first. While the first few colonists were explorers and the sailors and families willing to join them, soon most colonists were exiles, for criminal, econimic, religious, racial, or political reasons, and in some cases all four reasons. Wealth for the governors and often lethal poverty for others was common place, reinforced by the military of the home countries to control the valuable imports.
Unfortunately, Mars is not likely to ever be profitable. While free fall presents many valuable manufacturing possibilities and advantages, as does isolation from neighbors for dangerous manufacturing, the costs of supplies to Mars is so much more than that of Luna that it's unlikely to ever compete economically.
Re:Odd, the non-rich could travel to the US (Score:5, Informative)
Which ever government decides to throw resources at a colony will end up controlling it. At the moment the most likely to do it is China, followed by the US.
SpaceX is talking bollocks here. They are an Earth based company any whatever happens on Mars will be subject to litigation here. If they fail to enforce US laws they will be sued into oblivion by the relatives of the victims on Earth. Normal employment laws will apply.
Re: (Score:2)
The other problem with the people that dream of a perfect libertarian utopia is that power abhors a vacuum and as soon as you have your totally free society, some members of it will start forming coalitions for trying to make themselves more free than others and then some others will set about trying to block that from happening and so form their own coalition power in the process and there you've basically got the germ of governments and politics.
Which leads us to the cliche of democracy is the very worst
And Why Should They? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And Why Should They? (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that you can escape the power of nation states to ostracize by going all the way to Mars is ... problematic. Any Mars colony in the near future will not be self-sustaining, it will rely on aid from the "mother country" to a degree that no terrestrial colonies ever have -- unless you count things like Antarctic research stations as colonies. Nation states will have plenty power to hurt the colonists.
As for the "old days" of terrestrial colonization, your view of that is somewhat selective. Sure, on a colonial frontier you were far from where the government could keep its eyes on your day to day activities, but you would have been highly dependent on the government nonetheless. By in large people didn't go to colonies to be subsistence farmers. They went to get or make things to sell back home: furs, cattle, grain, gold, valuable minerals. Colonization was a national project, supported by national policy, money, and most of all military power.
Re:And Why Should They? (Score:4, Insightful)
It took Columbus what, 3 voyages before he was cutting off peoples hands to motivate the natives to deliver gold so he could pay off his investors. I guess that's freedom.
Try getting there first... (Score:5, Interesting)
...before making any grand plans. From a practical point of view, if they want to launch from US soil (which makes sense, since all their hardware is there) the US may have something to say about whether they are even allowed to leave, considering this self-proclaimed intention to not obey international law. And claiming the entire planet is indeed very much a violation of space law.
Would a possible future self-sustained Mars Colony be independent? Of course, it couldn't be anything else. but to state this before they've even launched their first flight feels like entirely the wrong thing to do. Instead of the pioneers of humanity on its greatest frontier (i.e. a great adventure shared by all), with these words they choose to place themselves in opposition to us (i.e. they have their own rock and don't care for us and our laws). What an incredibly bad call...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No need to "get there first", the issue is already legally settled. U.S. (and many other countries) citizens are subjects of their State of origin even in space, no matter where in space they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I said that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you misunderstand the situation. You imagine SpaceX has made themselves "in opposition to us" and that colony "of course will be independent". You imagine where rockets launch from is of any relevance.
No, no and no, law already decided, SpaceX words are empty lies and wishful thinking. They will always be subject to their country of origin no matter where they go. Irrelevant where the rockets launch from. Already decided.
Re: (Score:2)
You're delusional. SpaceX in opposition: that's what the article is reporting.
Independence: if and when a future Mars colony becomes fully self-sustained, they really have no reason for not having independence. Any current-day legal framework will automatically and unavoidably be trumped by the practical situation on the ground. The "legal framework" present in Britain in 1776 did not stop the US from proclaiming independence either, did it?
And where the rockets are launched most certainly matters. If Musk
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you kids need to get back to reality.
Those, who have the biggest sticks, make the rules.
Let's see how quickly he backpedals, once somebody holds a gun to Musk's head.
And what's to say that a self-sufficient Mars will give a crap about SpaceX and Musk at all? They might kill all SpaceX enforcers the day after acquiring self-sufficiency ... And be re-conquered three years or something later. ... Only for Earth to notice, that the plan was for the new team to take over and tell Earth to fuck off. ... Mus
Re: (Score:2)
That works as well as US being subject to UK law works. It works until the people decide it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is no enforcement for a law, then that law is nothing more than hollow words.
Re:Try getting there first... (Score:5, Interesting)
They could always agree to abide by US law before they leave, and then break the treaty once the Mars Colony is well established. Then we'd have US authorities complaining about a bunch of colonizers breaking a treaty, and a lot of Indians would have a good laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then someone would figure out that lobbing a missile in the direction of Mars is less of a technological challenge than landing colonists there...
Re: (Score:2)
Would a possible future self-sustained Mars Colony be independent? Of course, it couldn't be anything else. but to state this before they've even launched their first flight feels like entirely the wrong thing to do.
I disagree. This sounds exactly like the right thing to do.
If an international company like SpaceX is going to get private funding, people willing to colonize Mars, as well as manage relations with all the nations on which it depends upon to get to Mars, then legal questions like this need to be answered up front. Who's laws apply when on Mars? Mars law. Um, or would that be "martial" law?
From a practical point of view, if they want to launch from US soil (which makes sense, since all their hardware is there) the US may have something to say about whether they are even allowed to leave,
Why would the US government have a problem with a Mars colony declaring itself independent from the USA? If someone
All I wanna know is (Score:2)
When someone dies up there, are they going to make soup out of him?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably well within the realm of possibilities.
--
Not only does God play dice but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.
- Stephen Hawking
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I would imagine you would bury and compost them, and use the compost to grow food?
Re: (Score:3)
Composting meat doesn't work, unless you add in a lot of low-energy stuff, like wood chips and sawdust. It will rot and stink and grow organisms that and whose waste are toxic to humans.
If you get lucky.
If not, it might also catch fire. And eat ALL your oxygen.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends how desperate the situation is. There's a cost to recycling a corpse: Terrible publicity back on earth, which would jeopardise the funding. Remeber that a mars colony would be dependent for a very long time on regular supply deliveries, so they need to be concerned about keeping the public back on earth supportive of the project. Public relations would be a matter of survival, so anyone who does die is going to get a funeral dominated by concerns over public relations. If all goes well, there should
Re: (Score:3)
That said, in the event things do go horribly, horribly wrong - perhaps a few consecutive supply deliveries fail, or an accident leads to the loss of the farming area and severe food shortages - then the standard rules of the stranded apply: Survival at any cost.
International law even recognizes that. People have eaten their comrades in life boats and upon being rescued, the courts decide it was out of necessity and legal. They still can end up with a bad reputation.
Do you want prionic diseases? (Score:2)
Cause that's how you get prionic diseases!
Not legally (Score:5, Interesting)
Astronauts remain subject to the jurisdiction and control of their state of origin, says 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Sorry Elan, you and USA passengers will answer to and obey the U.S. government most important of all pay your fucking taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well yes. They'd have to be awfully old and senile by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, good luck enforcing that.
Tree travel years from the nearest police or military base.
Unless you send a military squad or space-attack them, they can just kill any enforcers that are or land there.
Of course we can also just nuke them and get on with life. So ... it's complicated.
Re:Not legally (Score:4, Insightful)
Here come the sanctions! (Score:5, Interesting)
The United States government, at some point, is going to come after this. Soon after that you'll see claims from other countries. How does that play out?
Sanctions.
Supply chain attacks.
Try people on mars in absentia and don't let them come back until you negotiate.
Spy's all throughout SpaceX.
Laws that tax space ports.
Customs laws.
I'm certain that if I'm thinking of it that someone in a government somewhere is already working on a way to get funding to figure this out.
--
She was a surprise, and let's face it, few people are. - Donna Lynn Hope
Re: (Score:3)
Not just the US. If this actually pans out somehow, and it does look like a sustainable colony might happen, the stakes are ridiculously high: We're not just talking about power, but about the future of an entire culture and civilisation. Whoever settles the planet gets to define the future for potentially thousands of years. A whole planet reflecting their ideals, their values, their religion, their language.
Do you think the rest of the world is going to take that lying down? Is China going to do nothing,
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot: Wars.
Rocket Go Boom!
Re: (Score:2)
Try people on mars in absentia and don't let them come back
Yeah because that's a nasty threat to people who have opted for a one way mission.
No information! (Score:2)
Spy's all throughout SpaceX.
There isn't much point having spies on Mars if they have no means of communicating with their spymasters back on Earth.
Given that Musk has said all communications will go through Starlink satellites (and presumably whatever interplanetary link SpaceX puts in place), it looks like he has foreseen that potential problem and has it bottled up real tight. With no way to send messages, either to Mars or from Mars, except through his centrally controlled network, he has given himself the ultimate in control over
Re: (Score:2)
all communications will go through Starlink satellites
All *official* communication, perhaps. Doesn't mean that communication is impossible outside of it. It's just...less convenient.
Please... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Elon has his way, I think the goal is not to have people drive on any side.
This is about the "Moon Treaty" and its successors (Score:5, Interesting)
This is about the "Moon Treaty" and its successors, along with rest of the international politics of certain Earth countries none of them with space capability at the time) claiming ownership of the rest of the universe, including all the celestial bodies, and excluding private property rights on such real estate.
Any business that wants to DO business involving obtaining property rights over any resources outside the Earth's atmosphere needs to be outside that "International Law" regime, and have a solid expectation of being able to make it stick, before spending their investment. Otherwise they can expect that, once they've burned their investment and developed something valuable, certain countries will confiscate these valuables wherever and whenever they are able -and clam to be in the right as they bankrupt the producers.
Think of this as a preemptive Declaration of Independence - and a shot across the bow of any nation-state that would want to pull such piracy. By doing it now Musk has a chance to get the legal framework in place and the threat settled before he has to pull the switch on actually spending resources on space colonization and industrialization efforts.
Re: (Score:3)
People in gravity wells are subject to bombardment from above. This will put a quick end to any ideas of independence.
Employees should watch the movie Outland (Score:2)
"Thriller about an honest marshal in a corrupt mining colony on Io, Jupiter's sunless third moon, who is determined to confront a violent drug ring even though it may cost him his life. After his wife angrily deserts him, he waits alone for the arrival of killers hired by the company to eliminate him. Futuristic remake of `High Noon'."
Re: (Score:3)
A state or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
This leads to a sticky situation for the colony: by declaring their own laws and exercising control over their borders/citizens, they fulfill the criteria of being a state, and at that point, according to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, they are legally barred from owning territory off-planet.
Now granted, the Outer Space Treaty, as well as the adjoining Moon Treaty, are long overdue for a refresh, given that circumstances have changed drastically since their passing, but there seems to be little will in the world to actually make that change and establish a proper legal framework for expansion into space.
Re: (Score:2)
by declaring their own laws and exercising control over their borders/citizens, they fulfill the criteria of being a state, and at that point, according to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, they are legally barred from owning territory off-planet.
Except that the colony would not be a signatory to the Space Treaty, so it wouldn't be bound by it.
Once they are up there, they can declare anything they like. The real question is what other countries will do about it. Divide and conquer... if the USA and/or Europe make a big deal out of boycotting the fledgling colony, I am sure that countries like China and Russia will smell an opportunity, and move to recognize them as a state. Exclusive trade agreements with (and landing rights at) a space colony c
Re: (Score:2)
Dream on (Score:4, Interesting)
Should SpaceX ever reach Mars and establish a colony there while ignoring the interests of United States, his company will be forced to fall in line with Washington DC as soon as sanctions or regulatory burdens are placed on this company.
viable target? (Score:2)
Been there done that already (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, governments have been toppled.
You got a certain agency that did half of those since WWII.
And Rome itself fell too. To a bunch of "barbaric hordes". :D
So about the state with said agency... Ald a certain Trumpet of Jericho...
KSR (Score:2)
Build a shipyard first (Score:2)
I think that one have to build some facility on Mars, where new StarShips can be built, and only after make such a statements,
Now, without self-sustaining town on Mars which can build its own interplanetary vehicles, SpaceX is just too vulnerable for nation-state attacks.
Oh great! LibertArian paradise! (Score:2)
Let's see how long it lasts until everyone murders everyone. One week, or maybe all of two?
LOL (Score:3)
They have to get there first, and to get there first they must accept the law, or cannot fly. So, yeah.
Personal welfare vs. private property (Score:2)
Ideally, people participate in decisions that affect them. When government functions properly, which happens *if* citizens are smart and active, it is the voice of the people. What Elon Musk is demonstrating here is how privatization is a form of dictatorship, and it will end badly. To whom will he be accountable to? Why is it a good idea for any one person to have that much power?
Let's differentiate between private property, and personal property - a distinction that doesn't get made often enough. Per
Legal liability clause to offset law suits (Score:2)
Send him a copy of Bioshock (Score:2)
nt
Who owns the moon? (Score:2)
Irrelevant (Score:2)
This may work for a little bit. Sooner or later the guy with the biggest gun will decide heâ(TM)s in charge. Which can only be changed by those on Mars rebelling against him.
Earth entities, be it SpaceX or a government can only keep control by frequently rotating law enforcement back and forth to earth. And thatâ(TM)s just too slow and costly.
libertarian fantasist nonsense (Score:2, Troll)
All hail Lord Elon, Eternal Fuhrer Of Muskomalia!
sieg heil! sieg heil!
Gauls, meet Romans (Score:2)
You got guns, Mr Musk? All the Earth-based authorities have guns. That's a nice " future colony" you got there. It'd be a shame for something to happen to it. And something will happen until Mars can sell metal ore to those gun-toting authorities, and the guns to make diplomacy necessary.
So... (Score:3)
Wrong order there, Elon (Score:4, Funny)
Didn't you read the Mars trilogy? You're supposed to declare independence after you get to Mars.
Comment removed (Score:3)
You didn't build that (Score:3)
Despite SpaceX's amazing achievements, they're still totally dependent on government and tax money, and the efforts of society in general. Did they build the roads, mine the methane, build the launch sites? Did they create the universities to train their engineers? They wouldn't even exist if it weren't for government contracts. And of course there are many more examples.
Even if they're first to Mars (entirely possible), they'll be riding on the shoulders of others, as we all do. It's completely disingenuous to claim jurisdiction for themselves.
Totally Ludicrous (Score:3)
To entertain the idea that anyone is going to build a Mars settlement before we are capable to do the same on the Moon is the height of folly.
It is the equivalent of aiming to cross the Atlantic before being able to cross the Channel. It simply doesn't compute.
Any professional still pretending to do that is only serving as a distraction, misguiding the pioneer aspirations of a part of the public into a cul-de-sac, a red herring.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you think we and our things aren't full of wildlife, inside and out?
You need Jesus^WJourney To The Microcosmos in your life! (On YouTube.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or automate those factories, maybe? Don't use expensive and fragile humans for repeated manual labor, only for exceptional work.
Re: (Score:2)
What democracy do you mean?
Which state on this planet actually has a democracy?
Have you voted on a law itself lately? Casually walked into the senate and started discussing politics?
Or do you mean the grand common delusion of "representative democracy" (Psychology says that is an oxymoron. Followers don't lead. Leaders don't follow.) for the livestock?
Otherwise, nice argument.