People most always find ways to take care of themselves.

After L5, or in concert with it, I expect people will be flocking around
dormant comets. Lots of water, Oxygen, and that great Oxygen buffer,
Nitrogen.

George
cygo.com

On 6/22/06, terrierkeeper wrote:

In a message dated 6/25/2006 11:48:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dante_feditech@... writes:

> Wise people do not begin speaking by insulting their opponent and end by
> refusing to explain their point of view. Trolls do that.
>
> John
>

I am willing to spend hours and hours explaining my position. It will mean
the difference between life and death for many people.
You threw out the first insult and I am just regarding you as someone who is
of no importance. That is what you are.

Hi Ho Silver!! Away!!!
The Cowboy

In a message dated 6/25/2006 11:14:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, de
hammer@... writes:

> They would only be free to leave if their freedom was guaranteed,
> something that would not be assured. The only reason that people in
> American and many other countries have the freedom to leave if they
> don't like the situation they are in, is that there are people who
> are willing to lay down their lives to ensure that freedom. In a
> space station, the communications would be controlled (radiation
> shielding would do a number on radio and TV signals, so all signals
> would have to go though a conduct, which means controlled), a persons
> ability to move about is limited, and his options are those given to
> him by the person that owns the station. IF the station owner is not
> that benevolent, the person would only have the right to leave when
> the owner said he had to. Also there is the fact that it would cost a
> lot of money to get that person out of the station. For a non
> benevolent owner, it would be cheaper to arrange an accident. after a
> few accidents, others would be less likely to ask to leave.

Excellent observation. That is why you must have people who are trustworthy
and stable. Benevolent does not work, and should not apply in most cases. There
is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Every person must know going in
that those who are with them can be counted on.
An explicit contract (a constitution is a contract) should be the answer.
This will not be America folks, there will not be any Calvary to come to the
rescue. You must have trustworthy people on both sides until there is not two
but one side. Nothing in space is going to be like it is on Earth. In an
Orbital Space City you must have people you can trust explicitly from the start.
Anyone who lies, defrauds or uses any type of force except in self defense must
be removed one way or the other.
That kind of provision will be in the contract. The contract is the
government.
By the third generation the local population should be the owners of the
contract and the structure of the colony, and should be in complete control of
their fate. That should be in the contract.
Enforcement of the contract will be by a majority vote of the other contract
signers from the time that the first elections are held (which should be
within 6 months of the formation of the City). Freedom will only exist when there
is effective removal of anyone who lies, defrauds or uses force to get their
way.

People who are forced out for violation of the contract should not be out
right killed, but little regard should be shown for their long-term welfare. They
should be given a minimal habitat with minimal propulsion and minimal
communication facilities and shoved out into space to fend for themselves. People who
want to leave for other reasons should have to pay the expenses of their
leaving.

> > That was already discussed and would be covered in the contract. As
> > said you are making yourself look silly.
>
> the problem is that whether or not its in the contract, is not as
> important as whether or not its being enforced or is enforceable.

An enforceable contract is just a piece of paper. You have to do your best to
make sure that those who will be going with you are trustworthy and will
abide by the contract without enforcement efforts. However if you must use some
type of enforcement efforts you should be as tough as necessary including
permanent elimination.

> > I do follow rules acceptable to most others. That is the hallmark
> > of civilization. You wanting to cancel a contract on a whim, are the
> > one not following established rules. You should think before you
> > open your mouth. Humm!! maybe not, maybe you should just
> > continue to spout off as you are doing. Good man, keep at it.
>
> Really, and that means all of the slum lords that are not following
> the rules of their contracts with the tenants, nor the rules the city
> imposes but does not have the manpower to enforce, are not part of
> civilization? The courts are full of contractor and contractees that
> are complaining that their contracts were not followed, that rules
> were not followed.

Actually slum lords are in a different category.
For the rest they should have done due diligence before they signed the
contract and if someone is found in intentional violation of any contract they
should be appropriately punished.

> Perhaps before you talk about others you should open your eyes
> to reality. Just because you and I follow the rule, that does not mean
> everyone does.

Unfortunately I realize this, and that means that in the case of space
settlement one must do much more than due diligence. One must do as much as they can
to make sure that the people chosen will abide by the contract as written.
Whatever the contract says, people will have a chance not to sign and to walk
away. Anyone who objects to any word in the contract should walk away or if
they express any reservation to any part of the contract they should not be
allowed to sign.
This will not be easy but it could mean the life and death of everyone in the
space City. It has to be done. In KSR's "RED MARS" there was a reason why
they had to spend a year in the Antarctic together before they were sent to Mars.
Just because not enough attention was paid to the interaction there does not
mean that it is not a good idea.
We must have a very firm belief that the people chosen will have a very close
view of what life will be like once they are out there before they go or we
must be willing to make hard adjustments. This will not be a game.
Even here we can start the process of weeding out those who will be a
problem, for what ever reason.

> > Well, that would take a few pages and I am not going to write them
> > here. You can buy the book. But basically the first group would elect
> > their own leaders after they had been living together for the first
> > 6 months and no law would be expressed except that there would
> > be no room for force or fraud.
> Actually most likely the owners of the station would be in control,
> although they might pretend to allow the rest to choose. Problem is
> since it would be impossible to get the entire 10000 ppl of the
> station together in one spot at one time, your talking about
> communications between smaller groups. Just who do you think would
> control those communications.

I understand what you are saying and it is something to think about. I have
thought about it and have written about it. I have an answer that is so far
acceptable to some people. I only have to attract 1000 people (500 pairs) who
will agree with me and can pay their way. Other people will have to come up with
their own answers but I am willing to advise.

Bang Bang, shoot um up
The Cowboy

Definately on that but I believe active comets passing through are
also going to be harvested for their materials.

In L5 City in space a comet is redirected into earth orbit for that
purpose.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, cygonaut
>
> People most always find ways to take care of themselves.
>
> After L5, or in concert with it, I expect people will be flocking
around
> dormant comets. Lots of water, Oxygen, and that great Oxygen
buffer,
> Nitrogen.
>
> George
> cygo.com
>
> On 6/22/06, terrierkeeper wrote:
> >
> > I believe it would be better simply to keep building space
islands to
> > accomadate growing populations.
> >
> > Government attempts at social engineering or social planning tend
to

Yes. And some come close.

On 6/25/06, terrierkeeper wrote:

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, jwsmith42000@... wrote:
> Excellent observation. That is why you must have people who are
trustworthy
> and stable. Benevolent does not work, and should not apply in most
cases. There
> is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Every person must know
going in
> that those who are with them can be counted on.
> An explicit contract (a constitution is a contract) should be the
answer.
> This will not be America folks, there will not be any Calvary to
come to the
> rescue. You must have trustworthy people on both sides until there
is not two
> but one side. Nothing in space is going to be like it is on Earth.
In an
> Orbital Space City you must have people you can trust explicitly
from the start.

this much we agree on.

> Anyone who lies, defrauds or uses any type of force except in self
defense must
> be removed one way or the other.
> That kind of provision will be in the contract. The contract is the
> government.
> By the third generation the local population should be the owners
of the
> contract and the structure of the colony, and should be in complete
control of
> their fate. That should be in the contract.
> Enforcement of the contract will be by a majority vote of the other
contract
> signers from the time that the first elections are held (which
should be
> within 6 months of the formation of the City)

this is assuming that the owners are not controlling the vote. its
possible that they may make it look as though only a tiny minority of
trouble makers are asking for a vote. if they have control over
communications, and any group larger than 10 requires a permit, which
would be hard to get (not forbidden, just restricted so badly that
there would be no use in trying) it could be made to look like the
votes were done and the people the owners decided to put in were
elected by popular votes.

>Freedom will only exist when there is effective removal of anyone
who lies, defrauds or uses force to get their way.
>

problem is deciding who is the one that lied and defrauded. any
person that uses force to stop a dicator is using force to get his
way. that does not make it wrong, just he or she does not want the
dicator ruling. the wording you use would make the allies of war
world two the bad guys.

>
> People who are forced out for violation of the contract should not
be out
> right killed, but little regard should be shown for their long-term
welfare. They
> should be given a minimal habitat with minimal propulsion and
minimal
> communication facilities and shoved out into space to fend for
themselves.

in the hazzard envirement of space, this is the same thing as
exicuting them. the chances that a station would be willing to build
a minimum survival ship that had a real chance of getting to anywhere
would be minimum. if they did and the people in it managed to arrive
at another station, that station would not want them. if it were made
to go to earth, with only minimum controls and communications, the
odds are either they would die in reentry, land on something that
would land them in jail for destroying, or kill or be killed in the
landing.

> An enforceable contract is just a piece of paper. You have to do
your best to
> make sure that those who will be going with you are trustworthy and
will
> abide by the contract without enforcement efforts. However if you
must use some
> type of enforcement efforts you should be as tough as necessary
including
> permanent elimination.
>

that wold be a real dream situation for slum lords. a contract that
they would not have to abide, and once the tenents were there, could
not be gotten out of alive.

>
> Actually slum lords are in a different category.
> For the rest they should have done due diligence before they signed
the
> contract and if someone is found in intentional violation of any
contract they
> should be appropriately punished.
>

unfortuantely, they are part of civilization (the bad side
admittedly, but one that cant be gotten rid of)

>
> Unfortunately I realize this, and that means that in the case of
space
> settlement one must do much more than due diligence. One must do as
much as they can
> to make sure that the people chosen will abide by the contract as
written.
> Whatever the contract says, people will have a chance not to sign
and to walk
> away. Anyone who objects to any word in the contract should walk
away or if
> they express any reservation to any part of the contract they
should not be
> allowed to sign.
> This will not be easy but it could mean the life and death of
everyone in the
> space City. It has to be done. In KSR's "RED MARS" there was a
reason why
> they had to spend a year in the Antarctic together before they were
sent to Mars.
> Just because not enough attention was paid to the interaction there
does not
> mean that it is not a good idea.
> We must have a very firm belief that the people chosen will have a
very close
> view of what life will be like once they are out there before they
go or we
> must be willing to make hard adjustments. This will not be a game.
> Even here we can start the process of weeding out those who will be
a
> problem, for what ever reason.
>

problem is once youve weeded out any potensial problems, there is no
one left. either that or you have a bunch of sheep headed to the
slaughter.

>
> I understand what you are saying and it is something to think
about. I have
> thought about it and have written about it. I have an answer that
is so far
> acceptable to some people. I only have to attract 1000 people (500
pairs) who
> will agree with me and can pay their way. Other people will have to
come up with
> their own answers but I am willing to advise.

personally i dont know what the answer is, and all i can say is that
the future will survive somehow. It always does. i just hope the
future includes man in stations all though space, and other planets.

>
> Bang Bang, shoot um up
> The Cowboy

hey watch those bullets, that was my ear you just missed.

>people keep discussing the number of children being force. i
>personally see it being more of a lottery. many ppl will not want to
>have a certain numbers, some less, some more. in order for the system
>to work there will have to be a certain number per year.

But folks, don't you think that a colony facing crowding due to population
growth would just build their way out of it? With plentiful materials from
asteroids, NEAs, the moon, etc., and energy practically free, it seems like
building new Islands nearby would be the obvious answer to overpopulation.
Draconian solutions might be necessary in the short run, but with human
birth-to-reproduction times at 20 years per generation give or take, the
colony could start a leisurely building program and NEVER run out of space.
That is until mankind fills up ALL the cis-solar space. Even if it does
turn out to be not quite as cheap and easy as I suspect it would, I can
imagine the colony gladly voting the tax funds, increasing productivity or
pushing for other ways of making money so as to afford new construction,
rather than put up with lotteries, sterilization, exile, etc. I just have
to believe that within a two generations of the advent of orbital habitats,
construction of new habitats will have become so cheap that the only limit
on human population growth would be those imposed by couples' choices, or in
some habs, by the sterilizing effects of all the drugs and porn they're
doing.

BradW

In a message dated 6/25/2006 9:04:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
epibeemie@... writes:

>
> >People keep discussing the number of children being force. I
> >personally see it being more of a lottery. many ppl will not want to
> >have a certain numbers, some less, some more. in order for the system
> >to work there will have to be a certain number per year.
>
> But folks, don't you think that a colony facing crowding due to population
> growth would just build their way out of it? With plentiful materials from
> asteroids, NEAs, the moon, etc., and energy practically free, it seems like
> building new Islands nearby would be the obvious answer to overpopulation.
> Draconian solutions might be necessary in the short run, but with human
> birth-to-reproduction times at 20 years per generation give or take, the
> colony could start a leisurely building program and NEVER run out of space.
> That is until mankind fills up ALL the cis-solar space. Even if it does
> turn out to be not quite as cheap and easy as I suspect it would, I can
> imagine the colony gladly voting the tax funds, increasing productivity or
> pushing for other ways of making money so as to afford new construction,
> rather than put up with lotteries, sterilization, exile, etc. I just have
> to believe that within a two generations of the advent of orbital habitats,
> construction of new habitats will have become so cheap that the only limit
> on human population growth would be those imposed by couples' choices, or in
>
> some habs, by the sterilizing effects of all the drugs and porn they're
> doing.
>
> brad

Thank you, John Wayne

In a message dated 6/25/2006 8:06:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
levi1_ca@... writes:

>
> this thread is going out in left field with its insults
> could we get back to constructive work - and as for having children -
> they will come if the people brought in are young, healthy, motivated
> by a dream, and see a good future for their children p- no baby
> contract required - just the knowledge that the children will continue
> with something important
>

Thank You, John Wayne

In a message dated 6/25/2006 8:04:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dehammer@... writes:

> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, jwsmith42000@... wrote:
> This is assuming that the owners are not controlling the vote. Its
> possible that they may make it look as though only a tiny minority of
> trouble makers are asking for a vote. If they have control over
> communications, and any group larger than 10 requires a permit, which
> would be hard to get (not forbidden, just restricted so badly that
> there would be no use in trying) it could be made to look like the
> votes were done and the people the owners decided to put in were
> elected by popular votes.

Again you are thinking very logically. In Florida we have a law that says in
like situations the owners must vacate, period at the end of a set period of
time. This could be included in the contract.
And on how to enforce that. I do not yet know. I know how I would do it on a
planet but not in a space city. Got to think about that one.

> >Freedom will only exist when there is effective removal of anyone
> >who lies, defrauds or uses force to get their way.
>
> Problem is deciding who is the one that lied and defrauded. Any
> person that uses force to stop a dictator is using force to get his
> way. that does not make it wrong, just he or she does not want the
> dictator ruling. The wording you use would make the allies of war
> world two the bad guys.

Well, in that particular sentence I forgot to add the rejoinder: Except in
self defense. An opposition to a violation of the contract would considered self
defense. This is why we always have someone read over everything we write.
This type of error could be very costly.

> > People who are forced out for violation of the contract should not
> > be outright killed, but little regard should be shown for their long-
> > term welfare. They should be given a minimal habitat with minimal
> > propulsion and minimal communication facilities and shoved out into
> > space to fend for themselves.
>
> in the hazard environment of space, this is the same thing as
> executing them. the chances that a station would be willing to build
> a minimum survival ship that had a real chance of getting to anywhere
> would be minimum. if they did and the people in it managed to arrive
> at another station, that station would not want them. if it were made
> to go to earth, with only minimum controls and communications, the
> odds are either they would die in reentry, land on something that
> would land them in jail for destroying, or kill or be killed in the
> landing.

Again I understand your reasoning but actually I would not care. I would give
them a chance to survive if they were as good and smart as they thought they
were. They would be able to live a natural life span floating around in space
as long as they wanted to take care of the equipment they were given. There
are a lot of ways to say it. You Play - You Pay, or If you cannot do the time --
do not do the crime.

> > An enforceable contract is just a piece of paper. You have to do
> > your best to make sure that those who will be going with you are
> > trustworthy and will abide by the contract without enforcement
> > efforts. However if you must use some type of enforcement efforts you
> > should be as tough as necessary including permanent elimination.
>
> That would be a real dream situation for slum lords. A contract that
> they would not have to abide, and once the tenants were there, could
> not be gotten out of alive.

I do not know why you are fixated on slumlords. They provide a good service
to people who do not deserve service of any kind. I agree that the world would
be better off without the slums but it would also be better off without the
people in them. People stay in slums because they want to. No one forces them to
do that. Every person in every slum that I have ever been in has always had a
way out. They do not want to get out by their own effort. They want you to
give them a way out and then they make the new place a slum as bad as the old
one.
To boot all slums are created with the help of the local government and
generally the property owners have no control with what happens. 40% of all slum
buildings are abandoned by their owners because the city will not allow them to
be fixed up.

> > Actually slum lords are in a different category.
> > For the rest they should have done due diligence before they signed
> > the contract and if someone is found in intentional violation of any
> > contract they should be appropriately punished.
>
> unfortunately, they are part of civilization (the bad side
> admittedly, but one that cant be gotten rid of)
>
> > Unfortunately I realize this, and that means that in the case of space
> > settlement one must do much more than due diligence. One must do as
> >much as they can to make sure that the people chosen will abide by the
> > contract as written. Whatever the contract says, people will have a
> > sign and to walk chance not to away. Anyone who objects to any word
> > in the contract should walk away or if they express any reservation to
> > any part of the contract they should not be allowed to sign.
> > This will not be easy but it could mean the life and death of everyone
> > in the space City. It has to be done. In KSR's "RED MARS" there was
> > a reason why they had to spend a year in the Antarctic together before
> > they were sent to Mars. Just because not enough attention was paid to
> > the interaction there does not mean that it is not a good idea.
> > We must have a very firm belief that the people chosen will have a
> > very close view of what life will be like once they are out there before
> > they go or we must be willing to make hard adjustments. This will not
> > be a game. Even here we can start the process of weeding out those
> > who will be a problem, for what ever reason.
>
> Problem is once you've weeded out any potential problems, there is no
> one left. Either that or you have a bunch of sheep headed to the
> slaughter.

I disagree with this strongly. You have a lower estimate of humans than I do
and most of them are better than you picture here.

> > I understand what you are saying and it is something to think about. I
> have
> > thought about it and have written about it. I have an answer that is so
> far
> > acceptable to some people. I only have to attract 1000 people (500 pairs)
> > who will agree with me and can pay their way. Other people will have to
> > come up with their own answers but I am willing to advise.
>
> Personally I don't know what the answer is, and all I can say is that
> the future will survive somehow. It always does. I just hope the
> future includes man in stations all though space, and other planets.

same here

> > Bang Bang, shoot um up
> > The Cowboy
>
> hey watch those bullets, that was my ear you just missed.

Sorry about that. I will watch my aim from now on. :)

--- In spacesettlers, jwsmith42000 wrote:

> I warned every one of that.
{looking silly}
> Just because it was contained in a pose to some in particular does
> not mean that it was aimed at that person.

OK. So it was meant for all. Anybody who questions you looks silly.
BTW, even if I'm wrong (which has been known to happen), that doesn't
automatically make me "look silly." What would truly be silly is if I
were in so much fear of someday being wrong that I refused to say
anything. In that case, I might never be wrong, but I could never be
right, either.

>>> Who said anything about governments.

>> You have set yourself up as the guy who makes the rules.
>> "Don't like how I think: go elsewhere."
>> Now, I like to think that I'm too honest a guy to pull something
>> like this,

Please read the above sentance again.

>> but let me put it this way: My wife and I come aboard. We sign
>> whatever you put in front of us. Once we are aboard, we state that
>> we in fact will not be having any children, and what are you going
>> to do about it. Do you have the authority to kick us out of your
>> habitat? Do you have any way of backing up that authority should
>> we refuse to leave? If the answer to both questions is "yes," then
>> you are by definition the government.

> Not necessarily, but I am in control of the property. As a property
> owner I have those rights.

IF you can enforce them, or can count on somebody else to.

> Also if you signed such a contract and then decided to ignore the
> contents there of you would be a thief and a liar.

Yes. IF I were to do such a thing, THEN I would be a thif and a liar.
Which is why I wouldn't do it. But if I did...

Forget me. I'm a nice guy and wouldn't do it. But somebody else
might. The question remains: what are you going to do about it? You
start to answer this below.

> Anyone who is a thief and a liar is to close physiologically to a
> killer for my liking

If it your liking which matters...

> and therefore I have the right of preemptive self defense

The right of WHAT?!? This sounds like you are claiming the right to
get rid of people whom you deside, all by your lonesome, are a threat,
whether or not any other person in all of Earth and Space would agree.
Using this "right of preemptive self defense" I could go around
kicking anybody who looks at me funny... even if they look at me funny
because I'm kicking people.

> by exiling you in any manner I so choose as long as I do not kill
> you. I would do so and keep your $50,000,000.00 as compensation for
> my efforts and your deception.

And when you walk up to this lying, selfish couple and say "GO!" what
if they say "NO!" Do you pitch them out personally? This is fine as
long as you are bigger than the guy you are exiling. What if you are
not? And please, don't tell me that you're bigger than anybody.
There's always somebody bigger. What if you are bigger than him, but
not bigger than he and his wife put together? He, his wife, and the
big friend who has joined them?

Again, yes, the guy who pulls this is a liar. He is a fraud. He is a
terrible excuse for a human being, and his wife is as sorry a piece of
work as he is. But if you have a way of exerting your will on them,
then you are either the government or an agency of the government.

>> And don't say that you'll just sue me in Earth court. If we are a
>> few hundred kilometers to a few light years away from Earth, then
>> they probably won't bother to send the cops. And if you *are* able
>> to do this, then you are under the authority of some Earth
>> government, and your ability to pull "my way or the highway" stuff
>> with how many children a woman bears is going to be quite limited.

> That might be true but there are some honest people in this world. I
> would be providing a service for a price. Many people would honestly
> enter into such a contract. Just because you are not one of them
> does not mean that they are limited.

Does the word "hypothetical" mean anything to you?
Yes, there are people who would enter into your contract, with no
intent to cheat you. Some would be cheats.
Some would enter honestly, but then the woman has a complication with
the second child, and is unable, medically, to bear a third. Do she
and her huband have to leave? Do you keep their $50 million? What if
they refuse to leave? Can they sue to get some of their money back,
or is your word law, with no recourse?

>>> These would be personal performance contracts and would have a
>>> definite stated lifetime. 50 years at most, more likely 30 years
>>> or until the signatory dies or fulfills the terms thereof.
>>> Believe me there will be many signatories who will be willing to
>>> pay upward of US$25,000,000.00 to place their signatures on such a
>>> document.

>> This I believe. Especially if you are the only game in town. If you
>> are not, however...

> Hurry up and get your idea on the road so I will have some
> competition. Let the market decide.

I have no skills, capital, or genious which allows me to do this
myself. Thus I have to hope that somebody else will. Being too
honest to pull the stunt described above, and being unwilling to live
under your authority, I have to hope that I will indeed have the
opportunity to "go elsewhere."

>>> The local government would be established by the second and third
>>> generations all of whom would NOT be signatories to such
>>> contracts.

>> Your society isn't going to be an anarchy for the first generation.
>> Not if you can somehow enforce a "have three kids" law.

> You are really exhibiting your lack of knowledge.

My knowledge is based on what you have told me here. You have stated
that those who would live in you colony must have three kids, and you
have said that there wouldn't be a government. So either you plan to
operate under the authority of somebody else (who can enforce
contracts), or you have no way to enforce your contracts, or you do
indeed have a government of your own (which can enforce contracts).

>>>> Expect a lot of others to go elsewhere also. A lot of qualified
>>>> people who could help you build the thing, not just noskill joes
>>>> like me.

>>> You seem to have little idea of what it would take to make an
>>> orbital or planetary society work.

>> Well, you might have something there. I certainly won't be
>> nominating myself as habitat governor.

> Don't like it go somewhere else or build your own.

This is in fact what I intend to do. Just don't be shocked when I
turn out not to be the only one.

>>> We certainly have a different view than most people as to what it
>>> would take.
>>> You may not be such a "no skill joe".

I am. I do not have the expertise in four or five different things
that you need, and only the baby basics in understanding of how
machinery works. I have little to offer you, aside from my talent for
asking annoying questions.

>>> You may be the kind of person who will make any colony a success.

>> It would be nice to discover that I'm a valuable addition to a
>> habitat population. And that the habitat I'm valuable to isn't
>> going to run my life right down to how many babies my wife and I
>> make.

>> But if I'm so valuable, I can hope that some other habitat
>> recognizes it.

> Get busy and build your own do not wait for someone else.

Hey, if it were that easy, there would be dozens if not scores of the
things out there already.

> With your attitude and the possibility of your unsuitability no one
> else would have you.

Well, here I have to disagree. I supect that many habitats would be
just fine with my attitude. My attitude is that government should be
powerful enough, but not too powerful. That how many babies my wife
and I make make is our decision, and that a talent for asking annoying
questions is valuable. So I think that "attitude" will not keep me
out of the High Frontier. Lack of marketable skills might.

1) there would be free sunlight, but moving a very large object
needed for creating a space station will require months if not years,

2)it will then require a very large amount of work, which would not
be free, to creat the new station.

from planning to actually moving in would require at least a decade,
during which the station would be at extream risk due to the fact
that the over crowding would be using up o2 faster than the amount of
plants originally needed will supply, nor the food. when a station
becomes over crowded, its not just the amount of space a person takes
up that counts, its where the o2 and food are coming from. also where
are the new ppl working, since all the space for factories and
buisnesses were planned out years before the station was build and
there is little room for more factories, buiesness and farms. on
earth, we either build higher buildings or deeper ones, or turn
deserts and forest in to farmland. that cant happen on a space
station. building higher is not possible when higher is towards the
center and thats already taken. digging deeper leads to space.

what this means is that the people will either have to be constantly
building for the next generation, or they will have to have a
limited growth, having a population boom only when the next station
is available.

another thing to consider is the gravitational pull of the various
planets and such. PLUS the fact that the stations will exert a
gravity pull on each other. putting them too close together without
some way of keeping them apart will spell disaster, while building
new ones near buy will eventually put too many in the same area.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
>
> But folks, don't you think that a colony facing crowding due to
population
> growth would just build their way out of it? With plentiful
materials from
> asteroids, NEAs, the moon, etc., and energy practically free, it
seems like
> building new Islands nearby would be the obvious answer to
overpopulation.
> Draconian solutions might be necessary in the short run, but with
human
> birth-to-reproduction times at 20 years per generation give or
take, the
> colony could start a leisurely building program and NEVER run out
of space.
> That is until mankind fills up ALL the cis-solar space. Even if it
does
> turn out to be not quite as cheap and easy as I suspect it would, I
can
> imagine the colony gladly voting the tax funds, increasing
productivity or
> pushing for other ways of making money so as to afford new
construction,
> rather than put up with lotteries, sterilization, exile, etc. I
just have
> to believe that within a two generations of the advent of orbital
habitats,
> construction of new habitats will have become so cheap that the
only limit
> on human population growth would be those imposed by couples'
choices, or in
> some habs, by the sterilizing effects of all the drugs and porn
they're

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, jwsmith42000@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/25/2006 8:04:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> dehammer@... writes:
>
> Again you are thinking very logically. In Florida we have a law
that says in
> like situations the owners must vacate, period at the end of a set
period of
> time. This could be included in the contract.
> And on how to enforce that. I do not yet know. I know how I would
do it on a
> planet but not in a space city. Got to think about that one.
>

thanks for the complement. unfortunately, the contract is only as
good as the enforcement, on both sides.

>
> Well, in that particular sentence I forgot to add the rejoinder:
Except in
> self defense. An opposition to a violation of the contract would
considered self
> defense. This is why we always have someone read over everything
we write.
> This type of error could be very costly.
>

there would also have to be some for of court that was not in the
station, and not obligated to either side. they would have the final
determination over who was the one that did not live up to contract.
but you are very right about how costly this could get: life or death
is not out of the question.

>
> Again I understand your reasoning but actually I would not care. I
would give
> them a chance to survive if they were as good and smart as they
thought they
> were. They would be able to live a natural life span floating
around in space
> as long as they wanted to take care of the equipment they were
given. There
> are a lot of ways to say it. You Play - You Pay, or If you cannot
do the time --
> do not do the crime.
>

again, there is the problem of determining if there is actually a
crime. what do you do about someone that becomes disabled due to the
station having flaws. or cancer. or one of many genetic problems that
would not show up before they arrived. then when it hits they cant do
much of the work they were suppose to do. having sunk every penny
they could hope to scrap together, plus mortgaged their future to the
hilt, there is no way they can afford to buy their way home. By the
standards you have stated, this makes them criminals and by the
contracts, executable by slow boat

>
> I do not know why you are fixated on slumlords. They provide a good
service
> to people who do not deserve service of any kind. I agree that the
world would
> be better off without the slums but it would also be better off
without the
> people in them. People stay in slums because they want to. No one
forces them to
> do that. Every person in every slum that I have ever been in has
always had a
> way out. They do not want to get out by their own effort. They want
you to
> give them a way out and then they make the new place a slum as bad
as the old
> one.
> To boot all slums are created with the help of the local government
and
> generally the property owners have no control with what happens.
40% of all slum
> buildings are abandoned by their owners because the city will not
allow them to
> be fixed up.
>

sorry, but this is sooooooo wrong that it hurts. as someone that once
lived in a slum, i can tell you that ppl that live there don't do so
by choice. It takes money to get out and if your family is all in the
same boat, who gets out. on very rare occasion you will see someone
that gets out on a scholarship, or though some manner of combination
of both luck and extreamly hard work. luck is not something that
everyone has, nor is the ability to do that kind of work. for some
the military is a way out, but not for most.

most of the abandon buildings are abandoned not because the city will
not let them, but because the slum lords dont want to spend the money
the city demands they spend to get the building up to the level that
it would be safe for someone to live there. in space there are no
city authorities to demand that building codes are met.

>
> I disagree with this strongly. You have a lower estimate of humans
than I do
> and most of them are better than you picture here.
>

the estimate i have for some is the result of what i have seen, and
have experience. I will agree that the majority are better, but
unfortuantely, as long as we are humans (as we know us), we will
always have the dark side of human nature. as long as it exist, there
will be those who choise to give in to the dark side (sorry i had to
say that)

In a message dated 6/26/2006 12:25:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
xenophile2002@... writes:

>
> OK. So it was meant for all. Anybody who questions you looks silly.

I said that because I knew that instead of asking questions so that you could
understand what I was aiming at, you would come out making outlandish
statements, which you did, that make you look silly.
By now I know the style of most people on this kind of list, and to learn is
way to the bottom of what they want to do. First they want to fight and it
takes several hundred hours before anything intelligent is ever said.

> BTW, even if I'm wrong (which has been known to happen), that doesn't
> automatically make me "look silly." What would truly be silly is if I
> were in so much fear of someday being wrong that I refused to say
> anything. In that case, I might never be wrong, but I could never be
> right, either.

This is true but instead of coming out of the box wanting to fight you could
ask for further explanation or ask why I arrived at that conclusion.
Instead you came out "I ain't gonna do it" "You cannot make me do it" and you
looked silly, like a 5 year old in a sand lot.
Other people on this list did it, why couldn't you.
There is a way to get your answers and never be wrong or silly.

> Please read the above sentence again.
>
> >> But let me put it this way: My wife and I come aboard. We sign
> >> whatever you put in front of us. Once we are aboard, we state that
> >> we in fact will not be having any children, and what are you going
> >> to do about it. Do you have the authority to kick us out of your
> >> habitat? Do you have any way of backing up that authority should
> >> we refuse to leave? If the answer to both questions is "yes," then
> >> you are by definition the government.
>
> > Not necessarily, but I am in control of the property. As a property
> > owner I have those rights.
>
> IF you can enforce them, or can count on somebody else to.
>
> > Also if you signed such a contract and then decided to ignore the
> > contents there of you would be a thief and a liar.
>
> Yes, IF I were to do such a thing, THEN I would be a thief and a liar.
> Which is why I wouldn't do it. But if I did...
>
> Forget me. I'm a nice guy and wouldn't do it. But somebody else
> might. The question remains: what are you going to do about it? You
> start to answer this below.
>
> > Anyone who is a thief and a liar is to close physiologically to a
> > killer for my liking
>
> If it your liking which matters...
>
> > and therefore I have the right of preemptive self defense
>
> The right of WHAT?!? This sounds like you are claiming the right to
> get rid of people whom you decide, all by your lonesome, are a threat,
> whether or not any other person in all of Earth and Space would agree.
> Using this "right of preemptive self defense" I could go around
> kicking anybody who looks at me funny... even if they look at me funny
> because I'm kicking people.

In Florida we have a law that says shot and then ask questions. I agree with
this. If you never want to face such a situation, you conduct yourself in a
civilized manner. Say what you are going to do and do what you say you will do
and you will be alright most of the time. Try to get funny and you get
dismissed.

> > by exiling you in any manner I so choose as long as I do not kill
> > you. I would do so and keep your $50,000,000.00 as compensation for
> > my efforts and your deception.
>
> And when you walk up to this lying, selfish couple and say "GO!" what
> if they say "NO!" Do you pitch them out personally? This is fine as
> long as you are bigger than the guy you are exiling. What if you are
> not? And please, don't tell me that you're bigger than anybody.
> There's always somebody bigger. What if you are bigger than him, but
> not bigger than he and his wife put together? He, his wife, and the
> big friend who has joined them?
>
> Again, yes, the guy who pulls this is a liar. He is a fraud. He is a
> terrible excuse for a human being, and his wife is as sorry a piece of
> work as he is. But if you have a way of exerting your will on them,
> then you are either the government or an agency of the government.

I am only the owner of my self. I am only a self governor. When you infringe
on my space, yes them I become governor of what you are doing and I will take
appropriate action. I will use as much or as little force as is possible to
get you out of my jurisdiction. What ever it takes.

The rest of what you write is just more of the same. Had you addressed this
in a manner to learn you would now know a lot more. Instead you open up in a
combative manner which is not a way to induce intelligent conversation, so I am
not going to answer any more.

In a message dated 6/26/2006 1:20:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dehammer@... writes:

> Thanks for the complement. Unfortunately, the contract is only as
> good as the enforcement, on both sides.

This is true and that is why we have to do as much due diligence as we can to
assure that there will never be any question about enforcement for the first
wave of people going out. Later settlers will not have to be screened as
heavily as necessary to be able to establish our presence out there.
The real deal killer in this whole scenario would be anarchy or a major
disaster that kills many because someone did not do due diligence. This will be
like walking on eggs for a long time but we can do it.

> > Well, in that particular sentence I forgot to add the rejoinder:
> > Except in self defense. An opposition to a violation of the contract
> > would considered self defense. This is why we always have
> > someone read over everything we write. This type of error
> > could be very costly.
>
> There would also have to be some for of court that was not in the
> station, and not obligated to either side. They would have the final
> determination over who was the one that did not live up to contract.
> but you are very right about how costly this could get: life or death
> is not out of the question.

While that would be nice it will not be practical for a long time to come.
More likely we will be either self governed like the "Laws of the Sea"
(Thank you George for posting those links.)

> > Again I understand your reasoning but actually I would not care. I
> > would give them a chance to survive if they were as good and
>
> >Smart as they thought they were. They would be able to live a
> > natural life span floating around in space as long as they wanted
> > to take care of the equipment they were given. There are a lot of
> > ways to say it. You Play - You Pay, or If you cannot do the time --
> > do not do the crime.
>
> again, there is the problem of determining if there is actually a
> crime. what do you do about someone that becomes disabled due to the
> station having flaws. or cancer. or one of many genetic problems that
> would not show up before they arrived. then when it hits they can't do
> much of the work they were supposed to do. having sunk every penny
> they could hope to scrap together, plus mortgaged their future to the
> hilt, there is no way they can afford to buy their way home. By the
> standards you have stated, this makes them criminals and by the
> contracts, executable by slow boat.

I would like to believe that we have become civilized enough so that these
situations would not be questioned as to what would be done. I do believe that
there should be something in writing to address these things, just in case.
Rebellion against a contract holder in such cases that were not handled in a
civilized manner would be justified.

> > I do not know why you are fixated on slumlords. They provide a good
> > service to people who do not deserve service of any kind. I agree
> > that the world would be better off without the slums but it would also be
>
> > better off without the people in them. People stay in slums because
> > they want to. No one forces them to do that. Every person in every
> > slum that I have ever been in has always had a way out. They do not
> > want to get out by their own effort. They want you to give them a way
> > out and then they make the new place a slum as bad as the old one.
> > To boot all slums are created with the help of the local government and
> > generally the property owners have no control with what happens.
> > 40% of all slum buildings are abandoned by their owners because the city
> will
> > not allow them to be fixed up.
>
> Sorry, but this is sooooooo wrong that it hurts. As someone that once
> lived in a slum, I can tell you that ppl that live there don't do so
> by choice. It takes money to get out and if your family is all in the
> same boat, who gets out. on very rare occasion you will see someone
> that gets out on a scholarship, or though some manner of combination
> of both luck and extremely hard work. luck is not something that
> everyone has, nor is the ability to do that kind of work. for some
> the military is a way out, but not for most.
>
> Most of the abandon buildings are abandoned not because the city will
> not let them, but because the slum lords don't want to spend the money
> the city demands they spend to get the building up to the level that
> it would be safe for someone to live there. In space there are no
> city authorities to demand that building codes are met.

We will just have to look at this differently. Space will be a much different
place and it will be a long time before there are any slums there.

> > I disagree with this strongly. You have a lower estimate of humans
> > than I do and most of them are better than you picture here.
>
> The estimate I have for some is the result of what I have seen, and
> have experience. I will agree that the majority are better, but
> unfortunately, as long as we are humans (as we know us), we will
> always have the dark side of human nature. as long as it exist, there
> will be those who choose to give in to the dark side (sorry i had to
> say that)

I have been working in some form of the public service industry since I was
10 years old. Before that I lived in a swamp in central Florida. I think I have
seen a lot including almost all of the forms of "mans inhumanity to man" one
can see.
I still have faith in the basic human desire to do what is right.

John Wayne

> From: Xenophile
> OK. So it was meant for all. Anybody who questions you looks silly.

To paraphrase:
1) Give me huge amounts of your money
2) Live as I tell you
3) If you disobay me you will be evicted (because you are 'bad for the
community')

His statements make sense when you the context of a 'cult compound' in outer
space. Albeit a very expensive one. In which case like all cult leaders he
would wish to have the power over his followers, without the responsability
of admiting any responsability for their welfare, or of following any
written rules. It would also explain why he claims that anyone who disagrees
with him lacks 'proper understanding'. Theoretically of course.

John

> From: jwsmith42000@...
> I said that because I knew that instead of asking questions
> so that you could understand what I was aiming at, you would
> come out making outlandish statements, which you did, that
> make you look silly.

As I understand it, American law is heavily based upon precedents. Can you
cite any precedents for the kind of contract you are proposing for your
colonists? Or any similar existing legal frame from the rest of the world
that is similar?

It might help if you could point to a situation and say, "It would work like
this." So far you have not done that, and have talked about theories - and
anyone is entitled to poke holes in a theory as much as they like.
Especially since this is a discussion list, and peer review of proposals for
space colonisation is a valid form of discussion.

> In Florida we have a law that says shot and then ask questions.

If you're referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
Then that does not apply in a situation where a tenant is occupying property
owned by a land lord. In fact, if you tried to enter their property without
permission, then even if you owned the building and the walls (and the space
colony it's built in) then under that exact law, they would be entitled to
shoot you as an intruder. In fact the law is quite clear it only refers to
circumstances where the person being shot at is threatening real and
immediate harm to others, or real and immediate theft of physical property.
No mention is made of an application in event of breach of contract. If a
couple refuses to have children, what physical property would they be taking
from you? What physical harm would they be causing you or anyone else?

Alternatively, do you dispute the accuracy of the wiki page?

John

--- In spacesettlers, jwsmith42000 wrote:

> xenophile2002 writes:

>> OK. So it was meant for all. Anybody who questions you looks silly.

> I said that because I knew that instead of asking questions so that
> you could understand what I was aiming at, you would come out making
> outlandish statements, which you did, that make you look silly.

Except that I didn't. I started by stating that I would follow your
reccomendation: "Don't like how I think, go elsewhere." I stated that
I would follow this advice "With pleasure." I also stated why, in
fact, I did *not* like how you think, and would therefore go
elsewhere. I also asked some questions and presented a hypothetical.
I did however make a mistake, which I will address below.

even-if-I'm-wrong-I-shouldn't-be-afraid-to-take-that-risk thing>

> This is true but instead of coming out of the box wanting to fight
> you could ask for further explanation or ask why I arrived at that
> conclusion.

While it might be interesting to know how and why you arrived at your
conclusion, I was more interested in how you would deal with the
consequences of it. Perhaps the fact that I ranked these two
interests (how conclusion was reached, how to deal with consequences
of same) in the opposite order that you thought I should is silly to
you, but hey.

> Instead you came out "I ain't gonna do it" "You cannot make me do
> it" and you looked silly, like a 5 year old in a sand lot.

Except that I didn't. You made it clear that your sandlot follows
your rules, with no room for negotiation, and that anybody who didn't
agree should find another sandlot. I stated that I would take your
'my way or the hyway' mentality into account, and choose the hyway. I
then asked what you would do if somebody pulled the 5-year-old "you
can't make me" routine. However, I used myself as the hypothetical
cheat, and that was a mistake. Even though I prefaced it with "Now, I
like to think that I'm too honest a guy to pull something like
this," it was a mistake, because it makes it sound as if I am plotting
to pull this stunt. I should have created a hypothetical "Mr. and
Mrs. Smith." This way the discussion is about "how would you deal
with this?" instead of "why is Xenophile such a jerk." Using a
hypothetical, dishonest version of myself was BIG mistake, and perhaps
even silly/foolish. Well, you live and you learn.

> Other people on this list did it, why couldn't you.

You make an assumption here.

> There is a way to get your answers and never be wrong or silly.

The way to never be wrong is to never say anything. I'd rather risk
being wrong every now and again.

> In Florida we have a law that says shot and then ask questions. I
> agree with this. If you never want to face such a situation, you
> conduct yourself in a civilized manner. Say what you are going to do
> and do what you say you will do and you will be alright most of the
> time. Try to get funny and you get dismissed.

The Florida law only allows you to shoot first ask questions later in
certain circumstances. So Mr. Smith shoots you when you come to kick
him out. Well, using your own rules...

>>> by exiling you in any manner I so choose as long as I do not kill
>>> you. I would do so and keep your $50,000,000.00 as compensation
>>> for my efforts and your deception.

>> And when you walk up to this lying, selfish couple

Now identified as Mr. and Mrs. Smith, please. Again, my mistake.

>> and say "GO!" what if they say "NO!" Do you pitch them out
>> personally? This is fine as long as you are bigger than the guy you
>> are exiling. What if you are not? And please, don't tell me that
>> you're bigger than anybody. There's always somebody bigger. What
>> if you are bigger than him, but not bigger than he and his wife put
>> together? He, his wife, and the big friend who has joined them?
>>
>> Again, yes, the guy who pulls this is a liar. He is a fraud. He is
>> a terrible excuse for a human being, and his wife is as sorry a
>> piece of work as he is. But if you have a way of exerting your will
>> on them, then you are either the government or an agency of the
>> government.

> I am only the owner of my self. I am only a self governor.

You are not the owner of the colony? Then from where, whom, or what
to you get the authority to do jack about Mr. and Mrs. Smith, me, or
anybody else not following some set of rules? Where do you get off
making rules in the first place, if you only own yourself?

> When you infringe on my space, yes them I become governor of what
> you are doing and I will take appropriate action. I will use as much
> or as little force as is possible to get you out of my jurisdiction.
> What ever it takes.

OK, I'm going to try a different wording, and see if that helps. I am
going to ask this as precicely as I can.

Where does your force come from?

You state that you are prepared to use it, that it is your right to
use it, that you are justified to use it. But where does it come
from? I might be JUSTIFIED in machine-gunning the burgler who kicks
down my front door, but if all I have is a BB gun, then it really
doesn't matter how much force I am JUSTIFIED in using, does it? So
when the Smiths say "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo" (because they are indeed
like 5-year-olds in a sandlot... BIG 5-year-olds), how do you bring
force to evict them?

> The rest of what you write is just more of the same.

Well, I keep trying.

> Had you addressed this in a manner to learn you would now know a lot
> more.

If I did things the way want me to. This isn't your colony.

> Instead you open up in a combative manner which is not a way to
> induce intelligent conversation, so I am not going to answer any
> more.

"Don't like the way I think, go elsewhere."

Nothing combative in that, eh?

I think in the early days of Space colonization (the next 200 years
or so) there will be 2 different types of settlements:

1. Those control exclusively by governments/ big business

2. Those founded by individuals seeking to create their "ideal" society.

The government controlled ones will focus on manufacturing, science
and space exploration plus canned tourism, and immigrants from Earth
will likely need an employer to sponsor them. Laws and customs will
be very much like Earth's and consumer trade will be common.

The private ones, like John Wayne's and others will soon follow, and
I'm sure they will include many examples of governments and cultures
and rules that are offensive to others. Some too strict, some too
liberal. Many will fail and be forced to change their approach.
Others will fail and be taken over by Earth governments in order to
save the lives of the colonists. Others will fail utterly and the
colonists will have to be rescued, if possible. Some will actually
survive in a form similar to the founder's original idea.

Right now we have no idea what space colonization will mean. We
compare it the sea, or the colonization of the Americas, but we just
don't know. Our cultures and values are very different than they were
in the colonial era. Our technology and communications are different.
Our expectations are different. One thing we know for sure from
history is that we learn much more from the failures than we do from
the successes. In fact early success can lead to many false
assumptions. I appreciate John's idea for colonization, although it
sounds like I would definitely be excluded from it, and probably
would not want to be stuck in a can with a bunch of millionaires,
anyway. But I also recognize that any successful space settlement
these first 200 years will likely have to be pretty Draconian early
on since we are most definitely going "where no man has gone before."

just my opinion, but I'm usually wrong

doug

On Jun 26, 2006, at 6:11 AM, ANTIcarrot wrote:

i foresee an early one that combines science, tourism, teaching, and
some manufacturing, mostly testing. it would be in near earth orbit
(a bit above low earth, but close enough) but would have few
permanent residences.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Douglas May wrote:
>
> I think in the early days of Space colonization (the next 200
years
> or so) there will be 2 different types of settlements:
>
> 1. Those control exclusively by governments/ big business
>
> 2. Those founded by individuals seeking to create their "ideal"
society.
>
> The government controlled ones will focus on manufacturing,
science
> and space exploration plus canned tourism, and immigrants from
Earth
> will likely need an employer to sponsor them. Laws and customs
will
> be very much like Earth's and consumer trade will be common.
>
> The private ones, like John Wayne's and others will soon follow,
and
> I'm sure they will include many examples of governments and
cultures
> and rules that are offensive to others. Some too strict, some too
> liberal. Many will fail and be forced to change their approach.
> Others will fail and be taken over by Earth governments in order
to
> save the lives of the colonists. Others will fail utterly and the
> colonists will have to be rescued, if possible. Some will actually
> survive in a form similar to the founder's original idea.
>
> Right now we have no idea what space colonization will mean. We
> compare it the sea, or the colonization of the Americas, but we
just
> don't know. Our cultures and values are very different than they
were
> in the colonial era. Our technology and communications are
different.
> Our expectations are different. One thing we know for sure from
> history is that we learn much more from the failures than we do
from
> the successes. In fact early success can lead to many false
> assumptions. I appreciate John's idea for colonization, although
it
> sounds like I would definitely be excluded from it, and probably
> would not want to be stuck in a can with a bunch of millionaires,
> anyway. But I also recognize that any successful space settlement
> these first 200 years will likely have to be pretty Draconian
early
> on since we are most definitely going "where no man has gone
before."
>
> just my opinion, but I'm usually wrong
>
> doug
>
> On Jun 26, 2006, at 6:11 AM, ANTIcarrot wrote:
>
> > > From: Xenophile
> > > OK. So it was meant for all. Anybody who questions you looks
silly.
> >
> > To paraphrase:
> > 1) Give me huge amounts of your money
> > 2) Live as I tell you
> > 3) If you disobay me you will be evicted (because you are 'bad
for the
> > community')
> >
> > His statements make sense when you the context of a 'cult
compound'
> > in outer
> > space. Albeit a very expensive one. In which case like all cult
> > leaders he
> > would wish to have the power over his followers, without the
> > responsability
> > of admiting any responsability for their welfare, or of following
any
> > written rules. It would also explain why he claims that anyone
who
> > disagrees
> > with him lacks 'proper understanding'. Theoretically of course.
> >
> > John
> >
easier