Politics Discussion
- Thread starter trajing
- Start date
-
FTB will be shutting down this forum by the end of July. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
Wasn't there a law passed by the UN or something that declared space to be international territory, and no single nation can claim it? Or was that just the moon?
Partially agree that this generation has had a bit of a "boring" time for space exploration compared to the 60's/70's, although we have currently have robots running around on a different planet (not just a moon, a entirely different planet) and are having serious discussions on colonizing mars
Assuming that is correct, I still wonder if they could figure out how to tax the colonists. Like say the ship/pod/whatever-it-would-be-called is from x country, and there for x country has command over it and can tax it (but not anything else in space, only ships/see-above from said country).
Closest thing to this situation I can think of would be if someone lived in international waters on earth, and I do not know what the laws would have to say about that either
Last edited:
Heh, if we left for mars tomorrow, the liklihood that we would survive the journey is near 0
The U.N. has the COPUOS (Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space). It's a consensus-based organization, however, and if somebody really wanted to have their way it has no teeth for enforcement (for example, only 16 nations have signed on to their "Moon Treaty"). The basic gist of "space law" is that governments are responsible for their own people going into space, and that they are encouraged to get there however it ends up working (unilaterally, cooperatively, commercially, however). There is, however, no equivalent of the U.N. Law of the Sea for space.
What happens once you have sustainable colonies up there that don't need ground resources... to long-term settlements that have families that have never set foot on Earth?
(The answer, of course, is GUNDAM!!!!! Okay, maybe not...)
That is the summary of what I was trying to say @CoolSquid
Although, it's much better stated than anything I could write.
Last edited:
Very true and I agree, however, I said discussions. As in we are putting real thought, money, and time into getting there and it is getting a decent bit a attention on and off. Still, we are FAR from there, but it is likely to happen within most of our life times (assuming no one here dies within the next twenty years, maybe thirty)
Did you see the recent stuff about mars-colonist volunteers?
I have a game-night buddy who got shortlisted to top 100 or some such before getting filtered out.
He's nuts.
I read a statistic somewhere, that for the amount of money that was spent on the 2012 summer Olympics, a program with the sole goal of getting people to mars and living there could be funded. I would love to see a huge amount of expansion in space based research. If we humans can substantially live in the asteroid field or beyond, the possibilities literally are endless.
I would be incredibly interesting to see what type of world governments would be formed if, for example, the founding fathers had all the information up till now, about our government. But then, we go into the world of "what-if".
Last edited:
I would recommend reading the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson; yes it's science-fiction, but it paints a pretty good picture about this.
Actually we have the technology to make it to Mars and to survive there. What we lack is the will to go there. We did have the drive in the 70's and 80's until NASA published the infamous 90-Day Report, and well... look at how far we've gotten since.
Just thought I'd post this here, as it signifies the ever increasing need for political donation reforms.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/aircraft-lands-on-capitol-grounds/index.html
Note* I would not recommend cnn as a reliable source, by any means.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/aircraft-lands-on-capitol-grounds/index.html
Note* I would not recommend cnn as a reliable source, by any means.
He he - you're not wrong! Everyone in the UK (that's where I'm from btw) should have to read 'The Anatomy of Britain' by Anthony Sampson at least once in their lives. It explains how every pillar of government depends directly on the Monarchy - judiciary, police, military, parliament and government are all technically dependent on the Monarch. Soldiers swear allegiance to the Queen/King and the commanders-in-chief of all the regiments are royals. The courts are Crown courts. Etc.
At the moment, we're having to consider what will happen when the current Queen dies. She - and I'm saying this as someone who is not a monarchist - has done a very good job of keeping her nose out of the business of government, but her idiot son Charles seems to think differently. Our informal constitution (made up of nods and winks) might take a bit of a beating when he takes over.
...Nobody will actually let him have power - all those things are simply tradition.
It's not tradition at all. It's a convention that only started with George VI (father of current queen). Before that they were much more hands-on.
Two quickies before my meat:
Here's a quick example of an infinite crises that will destroy us, if it has not already: Judges empowered to create laws out of nothing, in a 5-4 ruling where the majority can choose to ignore anything that they want, and impose their view of "reality / right / proper" on everyone else.
How long has this continued? At least since a ruling where a by-1 majority (I don't know if it was a 7 man, or 9 man, court back then) said that blacks were not citizens in this country, and had no right to sue. Ignoring the fact that half the states at the time did say that blacks were citizens.
We have judges that have made themselves appointed for life (the constitution does not say that), and that have operated as though nothing can remove them, for so long, that even the members of congress seem to think that's the case. There are two different clauses in the constitution of our country that permit removing judges, one implicit (roughly, the term is as long as they are in good standing), and one explicit (16th amendment gives authority to hear the charge of failing to uphold the oath of office, for any public official, to the senate.)
===
The idea of modifying a bill that is "must pass" with something un-related can be brought to an end, completely, with a single statement from the president: "I will not sign any bill, no matter what, that has unrelated amendments added to it". And then, actually _doing_ just that. Veto any "must pass" bill that has stuff added to it. If spending $X for highways/parks/etc is a good thing, then it stand on it's own.
===
Meat:
My thesis: Economic policy and political policy cannot be separated. Your political views -- what you think the government should do to improve the country -- and your economic views -- how you think the money of the country should behave -- are at least 80-90% linked. The economic choices you make determine your political choices unless you are deceiving someone, possibly yourself.
My past post:
Very good! That's what I want to have a discussion of. I have put a few years into thought on this, and I'd love to get others to think this way. Maybe you have a better answer; certainly, two people's ideas are better than one.
Good. Now, what happens if you stop thinking of it as "Tax Revenue"? That very idea/name/label is at the heart of why I think the modern economic thinking is all backwards.
---
Meat:
1. What is inflation? I previously called this a trick question.
2. What is money? We are no longer on a precious metal standard.
3. What is the proper view of money flow?
4. Is there any problem with a person being rich?
5. How do you deal with someone working for 40 years, and then retiring and living another 40-60 years?
Lifespan of the human body, given good nutrition, care, medicine, exercise, etc., is 100 to 125 years. That is NOT a misprint. Virtually all of the "diseases of old age" are now known to be nothing more than accumulated malnutrition. Our system is based on the idea that people will die off; yet we now can let people live longer and longer. Cancer is the only real "killer" that we cannot solve -- telemere length is now solvable, and works, but apparently makes the risk of cancer bigger.
How do you design an economic system such that people can work for a few decades, earn enough money to stop working, and spend what has been accumulated over the rest of their life? How do you deal with the whole "I need to earn enough to spend for 60 years", only to find that the person has died after 10, and there's 50 years of spending in a savings account? And can that solution also deal with "I thought I would only live 20 years after retirement, now I'm living for 60, and need money"?
Now, keep in mind people who did try to save, only to have their savings wiped out by bad government decisions that damaged the economy -- how do you deal with that? How do you deal with people that, as a result of government actions, are unable to get money at all? (Issue: arbitrary government penalties and fees, on top of minor fines, that result in no end to what people owe the government -- so that if someone does get lucky, and should get out of poverty, the government takes it all and they stay in poverty).
Why do we call it "life insurance", when it is really "death insurance" -- it doesn't pay for your life, it pays others when you die. Why is it that the only real "life insurance" -- to pay you for a long life -- is social security, and it's only a drop in the bucket; and most government programs to help you in old age require you to go broke first, and then don't provide sufficient coverage to keep you in good health?
===
Repeat: My thesis: Economic and political views are linked. I approach things from the economic side, and let political choices fall out from that.
We've got that now, just in a different form. The crises that we face now are infinite in term, and are agreed on by both parties: the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war in the middle east, etc.
Here's a quick example of an infinite crises that will destroy us, if it has not already: Judges empowered to create laws out of nothing, in a 5-4 ruling where the majority can choose to ignore anything that they want, and impose their view of "reality / right / proper" on everyone else.
How long has this continued? At least since a ruling where a by-1 majority (I don't know if it was a 7 man, or 9 man, court back then) said that blacks were not citizens in this country, and had no right to sue. Ignoring the fact that half the states at the time did say that blacks were citizens.
We have judges that have made themselves appointed for life (the constitution does not say that), and that have operated as though nothing can remove them, for so long, that even the members of congress seem to think that's the case. There are two different clauses in the constitution of our country that permit removing judges, one implicit (roughly, the term is as long as they are in good standing), and one explicit (16th amendment gives authority to hear the charge of failing to uphold the oath of office, for any public official, to the senate.)
===
More to the point, "pork" refers to spending government money in projects that are not necessary, to bring government spending into a location.
The idea of modifying a bill that is "must pass" with something un-related can be brought to an end, completely, with a single statement from the president: "I will not sign any bill, no matter what, that has unrelated amendments added to it". And then, actually _doing_ just that. Veto any "must pass" bill that has stuff added to it. If spending $X for highways/parks/etc is a good thing, then it stand on it's own.
===
Meat:
My thesis: Economic policy and political policy cannot be separated. Your political views -- what you think the government should do to improve the country -- and your economic views -- how you think the money of the country should behave -- are at least 80-90% linked. The economic choices you make determine your political choices unless you are deceiving someone, possibly yourself.
My past post:
Very good! That's what I want to have a discussion of. I have put a few years into thought on this, and I'd love to get others to think this way. Maybe you have a better answer; certainly, two people's ideas are better than one.
Good. Now, what happens if you stop thinking of it as "Tax Revenue"? That very idea/name/label is at the heart of why I think the modern economic thinking is all backwards.
---
Meat:
1. What is inflation? I previously called this a trick question.
2. What is money? We are no longer on a precious metal standard.
3. What is the proper view of money flow?
4. Is there any problem with a person being rich?
5. How do you deal with someone working for 40 years, and then retiring and living another 40-60 years?
Lifespan of the human body, given good nutrition, care, medicine, exercise, etc., is 100 to 125 years. That is NOT a misprint. Virtually all of the "diseases of old age" are now known to be nothing more than accumulated malnutrition. Our system is based on the idea that people will die off; yet we now can let people live longer and longer. Cancer is the only real "killer" that we cannot solve -- telemere length is now solvable, and works, but apparently makes the risk of cancer bigger.
How do you design an economic system such that people can work for a few decades, earn enough money to stop working, and spend what has been accumulated over the rest of their life? How do you deal with the whole "I need to earn enough to spend for 60 years", only to find that the person has died after 10, and there's 50 years of spending in a savings account? And can that solution also deal with "I thought I would only live 20 years after retirement, now I'm living for 60, and need money"?
Now, keep in mind people who did try to save, only to have their savings wiped out by bad government decisions that damaged the economy -- how do you deal with that? How do you deal with people that, as a result of government actions, are unable to get money at all? (Issue: arbitrary government penalties and fees, on top of minor fines, that result in no end to what people owe the government -- so that if someone does get lucky, and should get out of poverty, the government takes it all and they stay in poverty).
Why do we call it "life insurance", when it is really "death insurance" -- it doesn't pay for your life, it pays others when you die. Why is it that the only real "life insurance" -- to pay you for a long life -- is social security, and it's only a drop in the bucket; and most government programs to help you in old age require you to go broke first, and then don't provide sufficient coverage to keep you in good health?
===
Repeat: My thesis: Economic and political views are linked. I approach things from the economic side, and let political choices fall out from that.
I'm aware that some of these are going to be traps, but I'll provide some simple responses to get started.
A sustained reduction in the value of my money vs the goods I wish to purchase.
A representation in any form of my ability to trade for goods or services.
I don't understand this question.
Depends on the definition of "problem".
Depends how those extra years are funded, although I think its implied that they're not living off their own retirement fund.