1. 12
    Who will own Mars? philosophy science autodidacts.io
  1.  

  2. 10

    Obviously everybody should own Mars equally under Georgist principles.

    What will happen is whoever has the most guns on Mars.

    1. 10

      A fellow Georgist! So nice to see one.

      For those unfamiliar, Georgism is (greatly simplified) the idea that the natural world is the common heritage of mankind. Nobody made Mars, so nobody owns it. The parts that they take for their exclusive use they pay taxes on, as compensation for the taking of what was not naturally theirs. This includes land, but also other natural resources like clean air and water, which again belong to everyone. No other taxes are levied. Income taxes are gone, because you own what you build yourself.

      Some extend the idea that the government provides very few services (just impartial courts, police, child welfare, and perhaps roads and such), and then after taking the small overhead needed for that divide the rest of the collected taxes evenly back among the population as a universal basic income.

      It’s a nice system.

      1. 2

        “What will happen is whoever has the most guns on Mars.”

        Yes, but will that be the humans or the martians?

        1. 3

          humans will be the martians!

          1. 1

            Plot twist!

      2. 5

        No one owns anything.

        1. 3
        2. 4

          The interesting part about Mars is that it’s political conditions will originate in orbit, before they originate on the surface. Everyone arriving on Mars will have the general capacity to employ orbital ballistic attacks by default.

          See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

          Contrast this with Earth, where even industrialized nations struggle to bootstrap ballistic missile programs. Observe Iran and North Korea as conceptual examples.

          In effect, this means that any fracture in Martian politics could be just as hazardous to Earth as to Mars. If some martian political faction decides to commandeer an asteroid (perhaps with automated systems that visit the asteroid belt) as political strategy, and threaten a colony to get its way, it’s not a tactic that isn’t on the table.

          It’s not presumptuous to hypothesize that a well-equipped martian colony will have provisions for regular return trips to Earth. If a sub-group within Martian society finds their strong-arm orbital tactics fruitful on Mars, why not try them against Earth too?

          1. 2

            There’s not really any science here. It’s straight political philosophy, which while vaguely interesting in its own right, I don’t think has any place on lobste.rs