Digest Number 754

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Michael wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >It is generally accepted in these trans-national discussions (I'm
> >Canadian) that the term "dollar" refers to the US dollar.
>
> That's my point. It's arrogant for the US to assume they are the
standard.

Once again, I am Canadian.

>
> >A base year for those dollars is set, so prices are quoted in year
> >2000 dollars, for instance.
>
> That is exactly what is not happening. People are quoting amounts
using
> current prices, past estimates and future projections.
>

Agreed.

> >Better than no figures at all, as it makes comparasins to other
> >projects possible.
>
> No figures at all is better. We don't need the information now,
beacuse we
> are not about to start a project, so debating the figures is
taking time
> away from other issues.

If the financial side is not dealt with then space colonization will
never happen.

>
> >It is time to colonize space right now, and we currently use
money.
>
> Really? That's been said since the 60's and I don't see an Luna
colonies today.

We could have luna bases today, the technology exists. The fact
that NASA has spent 30 years dropping the ball changes nothing; it
is still high time to move to the high frontier.

>
> >If the financial details are not addressed, then the other issues
> >become moot, as the project will never happen.
>
> No. If financial details are not addressed then it frees up the
discussion
> for other issues. Other issues can then be explored and debated in
greater
> detail instead of being pushed aside.

Suppose that every issue related to space colonization gets
discussed except for "how are we going to pay for all this". Is
even one kilogram going to get launched? No, not until the
financial side is dealt with.

>
> This is not a planning commitee for a space project. It is an
internet
> discussion group. Debating financial details is a waste of time.

Only if one never plans on launching anything. If one does, then
finances are as important as engineering.

>
> >Just how extensive would these restrictions to liberty be? Just
how
> >invasive would this space colony government be, that it would be
so
> >afraid of its own (armed) citizens?
>
> The right to kill someone is not a liberty, and "protecting your
property"
> is an excuse not a reason. The space government needs to be as
invasive as
> possible to ensure the survival of the colony. If citizens were
not armed
> then the invasion would be minimal.

Good luck fnding anyone to live on your "as invasive as possible"
colony. There are enough invasive governments on earth; we don't
need to spend billions building a space colony in order to be
slaves, we can do that just fine down here.

>
> >Your last two sentences contradict each other. In fact, your last
> >statement describes the status quo, the statist philosophy.
>
> They do not, they prove my point.

anarchy: Absence of any form of political authority.

One sentence said the colony would become an anarchy, then the next
sentence talked about groups fighting for control. Do you not see
that they are contradictory? Or were you instead meaning "chaos"
instead of anarchy?

>
> >Trade will continue as long as it is profitable for both sides.
>
> Boycott

Ask France, Germany and Russia how the boycott with Iraq went.

>
> >The point was that Nazi Germany was about as Statist as they get.
>
> Then you should have made that point instead of trying to use the
emotion
> behind your statement to sway acceptance towards another unrelated
point.

I thought I did.

>
> >And criminals, who don't particularly care much about laws, will
> >meekly comply to this restriction?
>
> That's what the police, military and special units are for.
> Repeat offenders can be pushed out the airlock.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere, a little bloodlust.

So let's see, you advocate a police state, with a government
as "invasive as possible", an unarmed citizenry... are the people
who will colonize space sheeple? Would anyone willingly move to
that colony?

Ed