"Airlock Despotism"]

>
> Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 18:22:27 +0000
>
> Monart Pon wrote (11/26):
> In a contained environment, everyone's life depends on public
> infrastructure--the hull of the station, its oxygen production and
> waste-treatment systems, etc., and you can't just walk away. Travel
> to and from such settlements is inherently controlled because docking
> rings and airlocks are unavoidable chokepoints.

In a condominium, everyone's life and comfort depends on common
infrastructure, the fabric of the building, its air conditioning
fire control and waste-treatment systems, etc., and you can't just
walk away. Travel into and out of such buildings is inherently
controlled because the lower floors of the building is an
unavoidable chokepoint.

> The relative lack of privacy lends itself to regimentation (such as
> how loud you can play your music, what pets you can or can't have,
> how many children you can have, etc.). It's easy to imagine
> regulations on how much water you can use in a shower, etc. Whoever
> controls the airlocks ultimately controls the society, even a very
> large "country-sized" O'Neill colony.

I agree. To a degree. It's like renting.

> How will a libertarian space settlement avoid creeping "airlock
> despotism?"

Fair comment, how about: because if people don't like it- they move?