Talk:Lunar Bill of Rights

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)

Surviving on the moon means a change in the human behavior. Social Darwinism says that behaviors that do not help preserve/increase the gene pool would be ostracized (examples from the history of human civilization: Homosexuality, Incest...)

Guns, violence are something that have to be ostracized. Not a utopia, but also economics and private property will change in the moon... If we look back at the development of capitalism and we compare the capitalism of today with the capitalism of 100 years ago there are differences... Do we want to export to the moon the same system?

Therefore, guns and violence, self defense, private property will be different on the Moon... The point is to think what we want to do with it. We could channel the Lunar constitution to avoid such things as guns...

I am not American, but I know that we can live without them... Prior to my first week in America I hadn't seen a gun in my life... I was really scared when I saw one for the first time... I was 21 and the gun was in a policeman's holster...

I do not understand why other countries can live without guns and Americans can't... It is simply a matter of decide what kind of civilization we want to export... We could export the guns civilization or we can just prevent that from happening...

History will tell the guns story on the moon...----Jose Giraldez 08:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is some history that led to the right to bear arms in the United States. In England the monarchy passed from the House of Stewart to the House of Hanover. The Jacobite Rebellions attempted to put the House of Stewart back on the throne. After the failure of the rising of 1715 the government confiscated weapons of the Stewart supporters. This left them unable to defend themselves against bandits who lived in the highlands and raided anyone seen as having reasonably moveable items of wealth, like cows, sheep, and gold coins. Weapons in the American colonies were used for hunting which was an economically important source of food. Settlers also banded together occasionally to fight off the aboriginal inhabitants. All of this tended to lend a favorable light to the ownership of weapons, and the constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms.

These things do not have such significance for a moon colony but it is hard to enforce laws against all weapons. Modifications to various sorts of nail guns can result in weapons that fire nails. A machine shop might not be able to equal modern factory made weapons, but if the mass produced product is unavailable rough machine shop made weapons could be the most effective guns around. People who want to violate a law often find ways of doing so. If there comes to be any motive for criminals to have guns on Luna, it would be hard to block every means of acquiring them. People might want to be prepared. - Farred 20:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, there might not be a need to enforce a law against weapons. As society evolves on the moon --with a new set of methods of production, a different capitalism (or post capitalism), a different economy... society might evolve. They might not be a need for guns or violence...

Certainly, we do not know... It can also happen that Moon's culture might turn even more violent than Earth's... All we can do is just to steer their society into a non violent one... Education will play a huge part in the future of Moon Citizen's... If the first settlers are non violent and have a non-gun background they could slow the process of human nature... --Jose Giraldez 21:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we can guess that a lunar settlement will be in sociological ways similar to Antarctic outposts. I do not have personal knowledge that no one in an Antarctic outpost ever wanted to commit a crime with a gun, but what I have read leads me to guess that that is true for the United Sates' outposts. There is a potential for some people to be dissatisfied with enforced close association with some of their comrads, but I guess that only results in some people not signing up for any repeat tour. We did not send up any guns with the Apollo astronauts. If industrialization does take hold, we might avoid the need for guns for a long time. There could be a policy that any pregnant settler and the father get to use their return ticket early, long before or soon after the child is born. Removing family concerns from the moon and having reasonably short tours of duty in general would eliminate some of the routes to violent crime. However, if a colony is prosperous, I expect there will soon be long term residents, children and general stores. I am willing to hope for a gun free settlement, but I just do not know what would happen that far in the future. - Farred 01:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

The cost of setting up a colony on Luna that pays its own way will be enormous. A colony or colonies will be on Luna by the agreement of all major industrial nations on Earth, or there will be no colony. Neither the United States nor Russia nor China nor the European Union will tolerate a hostile colony on Luna because such a colony could gain military domination of the whole Earth from space. The extreme vulnerability of such a colony during the long developmental period gives any of those entities the power to unilaterally destroy it before it becomes a problem. We need to keep the agreement on a nonmilitary moon and establish the monitoring system to ensure compliance. Farred 07:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In order to communicate more clearly the possibility of military domination of Earth from the moon and avoid suggesting that any particular nation would want to do this, I introduce a simpleminded bit of science fiction in which two new nations are added to those on Earth. I replace the Bahamas with the island nation of Adamantia, located in the North Atlantic and about the size of England and France combined. I place Muland in the South Pacific half way between New Zeeland and Easter Island and about half the size of Libya. Both of these countries stayed neutral during most of World War II. Adamantia declared war on both Germany and Japan in August of 1944 with Muland following suit in September of 1944.

Having established these nations in Geography and History, I ignore most of history as irrelevant to the story and only describe Adamantia's keen interest in space exploration. It failed to acquire any German rocket scientists during WW II, but managed to reach Luna anyway sending a robot probe that landed in August of 1975. Making great efforts, Adamantia sent 3 or 4 robot missions to Luna every year and shared with the world photographs of magnificent desolation in great detail including photographs of abandoned robot probes which seemed to fail rather regularly. The United states, the Soviet Union, and Western European countries decided to ignore Adamantia's wasteful obsession and concentrated on satellites in Earth orbit to the extent that they had any interest in outer space at all. This continued until May of 2027 when United States Strategic Air Command took note of radar echoes indicating spacecraft appearing from behind the Moon.

General Blackfoot: "Those Adamantian bastards have been hiding an army behind the moon."

General Bricksides: "We have satellites failing all over the sky. This is not merely a coincidence. Radar is picking up a very regular meteor shower of the pellets that miss satellites and hit the atmosphere."

General Blackfoot: "Those spacecraft have trajectories aimed at skimming the atmosphere. They must want to aerobrake to acquire LEO."

General Bricksides: "We have got to pound Adamantia now. If we wait they will have weapons in orbit that can stop anything we send."

General Blackfoot: "Get targeting for all of our ICBMs switched to Adamantia. See what we have that can target those incoming spacecraft. I am on the hot line to the President."

Hot line: "The Vice President of the United States will be speaking to you momentarily, sir."

General Blackfoot: "Damn, not Seymour."

Vice President Seymour Milquetoast: "I heard that General Blackfoot. Now, what is the national emergency?"

General Blackfoot: "Sir, The United States is under attack from the nation of Adamantia. Our satellites are being destroyed along with those of all other nations. Adamantian spacecraft are headed to take up position in Low Earth Orbit from which it is expected they could stop all airborne attacks against their nation. We must counter attack now while we have the chance. A robot army in orbit will not do them any good if they are all dead."

Vice President: "General, I find this hard to believe. We have friendly relations with Adamantia. There has never been a previous report about them being a major military threat. Couldn't those spacecraft belong to someone else?"

General Blackfoot: "Sir, only Adamantia has been sending spacecraft regularly to the moon. Apparently they did more than photograph craters and chemically analyze rocks. They must have established factories and built those spacecraft."

Vice President: "You say they built factories on the moon that they used to build spacecraft on the moon? How would they ever launch them? There is no rocket fuel on the moon. Adamantia could not have sent up enough rocket fuel to launch a significant military force."

General Blackfoot: "Sir, They must have found a way to launch them (See: List of Propulsion Systems) because we see them on radar. Adamantia is the only country up there. They must be behind the spacecraft."

Vice President: "In about five hours the president will be available, in the mean time I have been ordered to act in his behalf. I will have the State Department contact Adamantia to find out what they know about this. It could be extraterrestrials are invading. I authorize attacking the unknown spacecraft, but take no action against Adamantia at this time. I am convening a meeting of the military emergency team for two hours from now. They should have analysis prepared by then."

SOUND OF GUNSHOT

General Blackfoot: "It seems as though we have had a communications equipment failure. Robert, you have two things to do. Arrest me for damage of government property and bomb the stuffing out of Adamantia.

General Bricksides: "General Blackfoot, considering your admission of damaging government property I am busting you to brigadier effective tomorrow, pending review by court martial when we have time to convene one. Meanwhile we have planes and missiles to launch.

So the first wave of the attack against Adamantia turned it into rubble. The second wave made the rubble bounce.

After two days Generals Blackfoot and Bricksides were in prison when the radio announcement came from Muland: "We deeply regret the unprovoked attack of the United States against our ally Adamantia. Luckily a sizable number of the leaders were visiting Muland on business at the time and have survived. Considering the violent state of international relations at this time we declare a world wide prohibition of launching any aircraft or rockets without prior permission from the Department of Air Security of Muland. Craft that are in the air now will not be destroyed provided that they are traveling away from Muland and land in a timely fashion. Otherwise unauthorized craft will be destroyed by our orbiting assets at our discretion. A bombardment of the known military bases of the United States is presently underway with the first bombs to fall in about four hours. The reparations to be paid by the United States to Adamantia will the subject of further announcements."

Story by Farred 18:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My message is that one key unlocks both the potential for peaceful use of lunar resources and military use of lunar resources. That key is industrial development. Since we want the peaceful expansion of human capabilities but no expansion of warfare, we should unlock both and lock up the military potential again so it causes no harm. I believe international agreements to include monitoring of all colonies to continuously demonstrate their nonmilitary nature could be practical. Robot colonies would need to be open to inspection by the robot emissaries of other nations. When colonies are developed enough to support settlers, they would need to be open to inspection by human emissaries. There could be communist, capitalist, or any other economic system of colony, just no secret colonies. Farred 00:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of this is covered in Geopolitics. Farred 21:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Faults with the above story

There is no mention in the story of submarine launched ballistic missiles or submarine launched nuclear cruise missiles. It is conceivable that a sufficient military force in Low Earth Orbit could protect a nation from nuclear attack by bombers and ICBMs, but there is not much chance that Muland could protect itself from attack by United States nuclear armed submarines. Beyond that, the capabilities of a modern industrial nation to attack an enemy, when so desperate that there is no moral constraint, is something too sickening to think of much less write into a story. Incinerating millions of people with nuclear weapons is something that can be disposed of with 19 words in a story without having to think about it.

I do not actually consider it likely that all the other nations of the Earth would let one nation have the moon to itself for fifty-two years without so much as sending a reconnaissance satellite to look at the far side of the moon. The infra-red emissions of the radiators of factories on the moon would be a tell tale sign that could not be hidden.

The fact of military potential for Luna, Mars and the asteroids is an extra problem that space colonization proponents must deal with. It will not be a motivation for anyone to develop extraterrestrial resources. People will be just as satisfied to see that no one is developing the moon as to be able to inspect developments and ensure that they are not military; and no development is the cheaper option. We must sell lunar development as not only worth the cost of development but worth the cost of inspections as well.

Just so no one is misled, the idea of international inspection of all extraterrestrial bases to ensure no military uses did not originate with me. In John G. Hemry's book "Against All Enemies,"(copyright 2006) which is set in space in the year 2102, he has the nations agreeing that no one can set up a base on a celestial body "without international approval, supervision, and inspection."(page 7) I would not approve of the well armed military spacecraft that Hemry has patrolling space to enforce this agreement. Also inspections would be sufficient without supervision. There would be plenty of time to destroy a colony that fails its inspections and refuses to repair its situation. It would take a long time for military development to reach the point of a dangerous threat. I do not claim that these ideas originated with Hemry either. Farred 00:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So, who could benefit from military resources on Luna if the resources could not protect a nation on Earth from nuclear attack? An entity that would exist entirely off the planet Earth could protect itself from any attack from Earth that I know of, by using a set of armed satellites to shoot down any attempt to launch to orbit from Earth. Of course my knowledge of anti satellite weaponry is far from complete. If anti satellite weapons could not break such a defense with today's state of the art, there is always the possibility of future developments. My guess is that Earth based treaties against weapons in space can and should prevent a military threat from space for hundreds of years. Eventually when the human population of outer space is more than double the population of Earth, the situation will become unstable. We can only hope that the transition to military forces in space is not catastrophic for human civilization. War in space will be an ugly thing. On Earth, if your city comes under attack, you can go hide in the woods and maybe give yourself up to whomever wins the war. On Luna or Mars if the city air recycling plant is broken in war, the citizens die. If the radiators necessary for cooling the colony are broken, the citizens die. The difference is the smaller chance for survivors in space war.

On Earth it is said that my right to swing my arm ends where my neighbor's nose begins. On Luna, rights to do as one pleases must take into account the need to demonstrate to Earth that Luna is indeed harmless. Earth's concerns will unavoidably dominate space colony concerns for very many years unless an interstellar planetoid the size of Vesta smashes into Earth without warning and leaves space colonies thereafter completely on their own. Farred 20:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

After polishing up my crystal ball and gazing intently at a few possible futures, I find that in about four hundred years there will be high volume low cost access to orbit from Earth. I will add a link to an article about that once I have written it. Heavy industry will have mostly moved off Earth and strategic military force as well. Political power and police forces will remain on the garden planet that Earth will become. At this time a violent change in the leadership of the military forces in space will be possible. Earth itself will not be targeted by weapons. Earth will be seen as the prize to be taken over by the victors, who will then take over political rule from Earth. As to why military forces would be removed from Earth, they would be sitting ducks if they remained on Earth. Once military questions are resolved in space, all left on Earth will either shout, "The king is dead. Long live the king." or they will congratulate the king at thwarting treason. (King is metaphorically government.) Whether there will be one or many governments for humanity in that distant future will depend upon 1> how strongly people gravitate to differing views of what constitutes the least evil form of government 2> how strongly people hold various incompatible cultural beliefs 3> how strongly people are affected by "We are good. They are bad." bias which is sometimes the focus of government propaganda. The focus of my crystal ball is poor in some areas. Just take my word for this. You would not want to be living in space during the time of a total space war. The governmental arrangement that I would think best would be a multi cultural multi economic system of governments that have arrangements for peacefully resolving disagreements. Farred 17:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

---

John Reyes

Do you think that Syria spying on dissidents?

I suppose you are indicating that your name is John Reyes. That is not quite the customary way of editing Lunarpedia. A section title should describe the subtopic of the section of a talk page, and the name or nickname of the contributor should be at the end of the contribution. While it seems a good guess to me that Syria spies on dissidents, I do not know what that has to do with the moon, which is the general topic for this website. My guess is that there is little likelihood that Syria has a space program of any kind, much less a lunar colonization plan. Farred 19:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)