Difference between revisions of "Talk:Lunar Bill of Rights"

From Lunarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Sovereignty)
Line 49: Line 49:
  
 
-- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 
-- [[User:Mdelaney|Mdelaney]] 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 +
 +
Nation states wrote the current Moon treaties and so they wrote them to suit their needs.  Lunar settlements now have to be under somebody's control and tax system.
 +
 +
New treaties will be needed so anything could change, but it is unlikely that Google could found a Moon base without it being under some national sovereignty.  It could be the USA, but it would be much cheaper to buy the use of some small country's flag.  This is a common business practice.
 +
 +
--[[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 15:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 +
 +
----

Revision as of 08:53, 31 May 2008







Have your say here

If this article does not start a lively conversation, nothing will.

--Jriley 07:58, 17 March 2007 (PDT)

Right to bear and keep arms

I know it will :-) Hehe!

Let me start the ball rolling:

I fully support the right to keep and bear arms. I also fully support the right to defend your person, home, property or family against attackers, intruders, burglars and thieves.
I would be against allowing conventional ammunition for civilian use due to the danger it would pose to the pressure vessel. But there are special types of ammunition available.
In the early days, there will not be much need for law enforcement or even self defense, but as the settlements grow things might change somewhat. But this is not the wild west we're talking about, this will be a very tightly sealed environment, and there are no animals to hunt or defend ourselves from. So I must ask the question "Will civilian held guns be necessary at all?".
In answer to that I have to look at countries where guns are illegal and theoretically unobtainable. In a number of those countries, only the criminals (and a few police) have guns. Interestingly, gun crime is on the rise in those countries.

-- Mdelaney 03:27, 04 April 2007 (BST)

Lunar citizens versus Flags of Convenience

So which will it be, Lunar citizens or Flags of Convenience? We do not need both. If the Moon is a nation-state, then it will have jurisdiction, and flags of convenience will not apply. On the other hand, if the Moon is an international entity governed jointly by, say the United Nations, then there will be no such thing as a lunar citizens, all humans on the Moon will be citizens of one or more terrestrial countries, and the Moon will be covered with flags of convenience. So which is it? If the Moon is not a nation state, then the bill of rights means nothing, all persons will be governed by the laws of their home country and the United Nations treaties of 1967 and 1979 etc. Charles F. Radley 19:47, 3 April 2007 (PDT)


I've been slowly coming to the conclusion that a world government for any world of significant size, which Luna most certainly qualifies for, is either a really bad idea, or just another variant on Niven's "It was raining on Mongo that morning" problem (or both). There probably will be both flags of convenience and non-Earth citizenship, just not in the same territory. I happen to know I'm far from alone in wanting to be in the latter rather than the former -- the ancient Greek colonial model may be the optimal one: Athens may have founded the colony, but the colony is set up as an independent city-state.
Furthermore, I believe we should have as many competing models of how to structure a society in place as possible, from attempts at stable hippie-style communes to anarcho-capitalist havens to highly centralized bastions of order above all else (and plenty of things in betwixt -- and anyone who knows me knows which of those three polar cases I would choose...). Rather than have the socialists, moral conservatives, libertarians, et c. at each other's throats, let's have them set up independently with no expectations of controlling each other. -- Strangelv 03:05, 4 April 2007 (PDT)


Wasn't the hippie-style commune based loosely on the kibbutz? -- Mdelaney 18:27, 04 April 2007 (BST)


Sovereignty

Start quote
It follows that, like Antarctica, all settlements must be under the auspices of a sovereign country that is a signature to the treaty.
End quote

Why?

-- Mdelaney 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nation states wrote the current Moon treaties and so they wrote them to suit their needs. Lunar settlements now have to be under somebody's control and tax system.

New treaties will be needed so anything could change, but it is unlikely that Google could found a Moon base without it being under some national sovereignty. It could be the USA, but it would be much cheaper to buy the use of some small country's flag. This is a common business practice.

--Jriley 15:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)