Setting up the perfect country... on mars?

We should definitely tax their tea.

And that's the first! Who would receive the tax?

Still gonna wait a bit more before I write a page long idea.

Too subtle for the room I see. Ok here's a version with a higher word count.

A long time ago in a mythical land, a powerful empire had some colonies across the sea. The colonists complained about the empire's monarch that "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." [Fortunately such a thing could never happen today]. The last straw was when the empire's king put a tax on tea. That caused the colonists to rebel and overthrow the empire.

If you still don't get the point of my remark, and what consequences may result when colonizers lay out rules and regulations for their colonists ... you must be a product of the American public school system.

Also see colonialism. And the Philip K. Dick novel Time out of Joint, in which earth's colony on the moon goes to war with earth to win its independence.

The point being that no matter what kind of "benevolent" government a colonizer sets up, the colonists want freedom. Freedom. Freedom. Also see Catalonia.

You remember the story of Gandhi, in which Ben Kingsley drives the British out of India through the simple moral force of the idea of home rule. Rule of the colonies by the colonized themselves. Not by their condescending "betters" in the home offices of the ruling empire, who in the end can only rule by brutal force.

Colonies want freedom. That's what "tax their tea" meant. Colonies want freedom, not rule imposed on them by a distant power. It has always been so throughout the history of the world.

Every colonization contains the seeds of revolution against the colonizers. That's what "tax their tea" means. It's a reference to the American revolution against the British in 1776; and by extension a reference to the desire for freedom, even at the cost of bloody revolution, on the part of colonized people everywhere since the dawn of time.

It would be no different on Mars. One day you lay down rules, A few generations later you can either spend the money and blood to put down the revolution, or you can just let them go. They don't want your rules. They want to make their own rules. They want to be free. People want to be free. Colonizers never seem to understand that.

So when you're laying out your "ideal" form of government for people who will eventually see you as nothing more than a brutal faraway occupier, give some thought to the universal human desire for freedom and self-determination. Either that, or plan to garrison your colony with a brutal army of occupation. In the end you'll have to resort to secret police and torture, and once you lose your humanity you'll lose your colonial war. Go rent The Battle of Algiers. That's what colonization looks like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Well, no guns on Mars would be a good and reasonable start.

Reply to fishfry I think you made a very good point Fishfry.

Quoting fishfry

You remember the story of Gandhi, in which Ben Kingsley drives the British out of India through the simple moral force of the idea of home rule.

You also made me spill my coffee.

Certainly self-governance is important. Should we let perhaps direct them on how to set up their government though, and when to vote? When should the captain of the ship resign his commission in favour of someone more suited to the role of Governor of Mars? If we had rules from the beginning we might advert a disaster later on. This might be important especially in the infant stages when they are learning to walk.

"Well, no guns on Mars would be a good and reasonable start." - Posty mcPostface.

Just read your post on masculinity, pretty interesting.

Would security then have to be trained in extensive martial arts in order to combat the loss of firearms? And what would the punishment be for someone with a gun, given that they pose a larger lethal risk against the populous and law enforcement?

If no guns are allowed instead of a set regulation to guns, what would happen if a corporation or syndicate decides to take over a city via invasion?

I for one think that guns should be allowed in the internal and external defence of martian interests.

Yes well that's the tricky part. The first generation sees themselves as part of the colonizers. A few generations later they don't. Even in the American revolution there were plenty of loyalists to King George. I don't know the answer. Just wanted to raise the question.

Quoting AlexiMicrowave

If no guns are allowed instead of a set regulation to guns, what would happen if a corporation or syndicate decides to take over a city via invasion?

I for one think that guns should be allowed in the internal and external defence of martian interests.

If a corporation decided to take over, I don't think a handful of guns will make too much of a difference. Just bomb them from the air. As to internal defense of the fledgling colony where every able body is an asset, a club might be more useful.

What population size are you envisaging for this colony?

What population size are you envisaging for this colony?

-MikeL

It could be any size, but for a rough estimate, I'd start with 10 000 for the first 10 to 20 years. After that, I'd say it would grow at a rate of double up to a point where it's closer to 100 000 000 in the first 100 years. After that I'm not sure, it depends on the resources that could be gathered or produced on Mars.

Reply to AlexiMicrowave Quoting AlexiMicrowave

I'd start with 10 000

Wow, that's a lot more than I was envisaging. It's the size of a small town. With that many you are right that you will need some regulation to control supply and order the resources of production. I imagine that people will be selected based on certain skills they bring to the colony. While I don't think you should impose a government, I think it would be wise to direct the formation of one after the initial set-up phase has been completed.

As to guns, I would leave them on earth unless you want to start killing people without a trial.

That's just the thing. Elon Musk is looking to sell tickets to whomever will buy them at the price of $100,000 a ticket. He'll accomplish it via reusability of his rockets making you pay just for the fuel of getting there. His designs are made to take 100 people per vehicle sent, sending multiple convoys per two-year cycle.

To put it in other words, the checks that are done would probably only be health and previous crime. And with the trials... I believe the very first colonisers should set up a bill of rights and regulations so to speak, thereby guaranteeing that things are kept civil in case of unrest.

I'm linking this at the top as well. The plan.

And a good explanation of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVcxz2q12AE

I feel like guns or weapons taken on the first trip or two to mars would totally f*** the social dynamic of any new colonizing group . Also agree once big enough its inevitable that a sustainable community would demand independence.

Reply to The duke Too true. Also thanks for posting here first.

Had stumbled across the forum. Had the same thoughts myself. So thanks for the post. Regarding the 10,000 colonists and popular therory, thatd be the bare minimal genetically to self sustain humanity. Also given they have the tech at that point to sustain themselves.

Quoting AlexiMicrowave

To put it in other words, the checks that are done would probably only be health and previous crime.

I take your point. What a great idea. I love that anybody can go rather than just a few select. I might move there myself, just as soon as I get some cash. While it's a pretty impressive proposal, it's more than a bit risky. As mission organizer it would certainly gets the questions flowing.

If you want the customers to keep lining up, you want to get it right. There would have to be a lot more than health and criminal record checks. Psychological profiling, gender and age balance, workplace assignment including necessary professionals (doctors, engineers) would all have to be considered.

The first wave I imagine would have to be scientists and engineers setting up the atmospheres, main buildings and gardens etc. After that consecutive waves would have to focus on maintaining and expanding the existing infrastructure of the colony. Everyone would have to work. An artisan would not be looked upon favourably by a sewer cleaner.

If the gender imbalance was wrong there would be conflict. And the question of the viability of offspring is a big question considering the different gravity and despite the shielding, higher radiation levels would have on embryogenesis.

Certainly in that situation, upon arriving on Mars, I would want to know there is a structure in place that represents the law and would help me settle in, rather than it being a free-for-all.

My point exactly! Though I doubt someone who makes movies, sculptures, plays and comedy performances would be unwelcome. If nothing else, there should at least be an event planner that creates entertainment for the masses, because ultimately people get very bored very quickly.

Imagine what it would be like if you had to wait 20 minutes for Netflix to load every time you want to watch the next episode of house of cards or the 100.

Would you structure law so that Science and Discovery aren't influenced by policy besides the requirement for permits on dangerous substances and processes?

Quoting AlexiMicrowave

Though I doubt someone who makes movies, sculptures, plays and comedy performances would be unwelcome. If nothing else, there should at least be an event planner that creates entertainment for the masses, because ultimately people get very bored very quickly.

A pub might suffice. Combine that with regular breaks and enough free time that those so inclined might wish to entertain the masses, you could be on a winner. But I don't think an early colony would tolerate a slacker. I could be wrong.

Quoting AlexiMicrowave

Would you structure law so that Science and Discovery aren't influenced by policy besides the requirement for permits on dangerous substances and processes?

Again, I would suggest that it is a pooling of resources. Exclusivity in any form would not work well and would lead to conclaves that might ultimately rise against each other. There would be so much voting that people would get sick of it.

I would have a science council that would report to everybody on the direction of their endeavours of their work and the rationale behind it. There would be an engineering council, an exploration council a civil rights council etc etc. If there was a conflict between the wishes of the people and the objectives of the council it could be voted on. Anybody could submit policy proposals for different things.

From each council, one member would have to be selected to form an oversight committee whose sole purpose was to resolve conflict between the councils when resources do not permit two activities.

What do you think, do you think it would work?

That sounds like a brilliant idea. Have the vocation vote for council reps every four to eight years. These councils would then self-govern within preset regulations, for example, that no council can ban someone from becoming a council member, can force someone in the vocation to do a specific task or 'face the consequences' and no council member can be part of more than one council.

Reply to AlexiMicrowave It sounds like we're on a winner.

That we do!

How do we handle rights? What would be the basic rights of every martian?

Reply to AlexiMicrowave Hmmm, a Bill of Rights?
The right to vote
The right to choose your own partner
The right to life
The right to be tried on Earth
The right to return to Earth
The right to choose your vocation or change your vocation
The right to serve as a representative of a council

Something along those lines?
What did you have in mind?

Those are good.
The right to free speech and thought.
The right to any belief and religion, given that it doesn't put someone else in a lethal position. (The example would be human sacrifice. unwilling and willing. edit: You can believe it but you may not act on such beliefs.)

Reply to AlexiMicrowave
I would probably pay very close attention to free speech at the moment, particularly in cases where it becomes subversive. Expressing discontent, yes - sedition - no.

I agree with the religious freedom position, particularly the caveats.

As the colony grows the focus will change, but at the start maintaining balance in as many places as possible would be shaping a lot of the policy ideas I put forward as a Martian citizen.

I have to disagree with you there. Free speech isn't something to be messed around with. Banning words, ideas, phrases and other verbal communication of any degree would result in a bad precedent. If for instance, someone decides that the word toast is very close to toa-ist and that it, therefore, discriminates against a culture, and by extension should be banned... I hope that got my point across, but even discriminatory words shouldn't be banned, they are vulgar and I don't condone them, but pampering an entire culture at its very rooty start, will only lead to future problems.

It's like a child, mistakes need to be made otherwise it cannot grow into a stable and long-running society. To curb subversive Ideas in this case I figure propaganda would be needed. I figure a department of population morale and happiness is something that needs to exist from the very start in order to keep the new frontier as stable and productive as possible.

Reply to AlexiMicrowave It's an interesting dilemma. I agree that in a democratic society free speech rights should be protected, but I would envisage an early stage Martian colony requiring very tight regulation on certain issues, lest it collapse through infighting before it even gets off the ground.

Seditious speech inciting insurrection, that sort of thing can't end well for a tiny colony trying to survive of the dry crust of a foreign planet.

As the society settles in and stabilizes and population numbers rise, the regulation can be relaxed. It opens an interesting perspective on how to regulate the early colony though, doesn't it.

That it does. Do you clamp down on regulation for the sake of starting up and hoping that you can change it later, or hoping nothing 'nation' splitting happens in the first century or two while it's getting on its feet, all the while trying to soothe tensions with feelgood posters and other such propaganda?

Also if someone can come up with a third please do.