You are not logged in.
SpaceNut, we had no topics in ** any ** of the Index Levels that contained the word Peace.
Our Senior Moderator, RobertDyck, has created a topic for War, and it seems to be going great guns, as befits one of mankinds favorite pastimes.
This topic is offered for those who might wish to think about how to realistically reduce chances of offending so many other human beings they feel they have no choice but to commit violence.
I have limited understanding of what might allow such an outcome, but here are a couple of suggestions:
1) Establish a strong military to deter those who are thoughtful from considering violence
2) Establish a strong culture with positive shared values including caring for each other, and for others not in the culture
3) Establish resilience to deal with those who commit violence despite the strong military.
There are probably many other helpful ideas. This topic is offered for them to receive consideration.
(th)
Offline
In the interest of insuring there is a reply to the opening post, I've invited ChatGPT to consider the new topic:
User
tahanson43206
Default (GPT-3.5)User
Hello Again! It's Friday 2023/10/20 at about 21:28 local time .... are you familiar with Internet forums?ChatGPT
Hello! Yes, I'm familiar with internet forums. Internet forums are online discussion platforms where users can engage in conversations, ask questions, share information, and discuss various topics within specific categories or communities. They have been a popular form of online communication for many years and cover a wide range of interests and subjects. If you have any questions or need information about internet forums or anything else, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to assist you!User
I'd like to invite you to pretend you are a member of a forum where I am one of the moderators. I have just posted a new topic entitled "Peace" and I would like to send you the text with which I opened the new topic, and I would appreciate your (always thoughtul) response.ChatGPT
Of course! Please go ahead and share the text with which you opened the new topic on "Peace," and I'll be happy to provide a thoughtful response as if I were a member of your forum.User
This topic is offered for those who might wish to think about how to realistically reduce chances of offending so many other human beings they feel they have no choice but to commit violence.I have limited understanding of what might allow such an outcome, but here are a couple of suggestions:
1) Establish a strong military to deter those who are thoughtful from considering violence
2) Establish a strong culture with positive shared values including caring for each other, and for others not in the culture
3) Establish resilience to deal with those who commit violence despite the strong military.
There are probably many other helpful ideas. This topic is offered for them to receive consideration.
ChatGPT
Thank you for initiating this important discussion on "Peace." It's a topic that concerns us all, and your suggestions provide a good starting point for reflection. Here's my response:
I appreciate you creating this forum to explore ways to reduce the chances of violence and promote lasting peace. It's a complex issue, but your suggestions provide a solid foundation for discussion.
Establishing a strong military: While a strong military can serve as a deterrent, it's essential to strike a balance between defense and diplomacy. Fostering international cooperation, alliances, and open channels of communication can help prevent conflicts from escalating into violence.
Cultivating a strong culture with shared positive values: This is crucial. Promoting empathy, tolerance, and understanding within a society can significantly reduce the motives for violence. Education plays a pivotal role in instilling these values from a young age.
Building resilience: Even with strong preventive measures, some individuals or groups may still resort to violence. Resilience involves not only responding to violence but also addressing its root causes. Offering support and rehabilitation for those affected by violence and implementing policies that address economic disparities and social injustices can help mitigate these causes.
I'd like to add a few more ideas for consideration:
Conflict resolution and mediation: Developing robust conflict resolution mechanisms, both locally and globally, can help parties address disputes without resorting to violence. Mediation and negotiation should always be explored before violence is considered.
Promoting dialogue and understanding: Encouraging open, respectful dialogue among individuals and communities with differing viewpoints can bridge gaps and foster understanding. Platforms for constructive conversations are crucial.
Addressing root causes: Often, violence stems from inequality, poverty, and political instability. Efforts to address these root causes, such as social and economic reforms, can be instrumental in reducing the conditions that lead to violence.
International cooperation: Collaboration on a global scale is essential. Initiatives like diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and peacekeeping missions can help stabilize regions prone to conflict.
I look forward to engaging in this discussion and hearing other members' thoughts and ideas on how to achieve lasting peace in our world.
User
Thank you for this excellent opening. I'd like to clarify that the forum is devoted to Mars, and a great deal of thought has been invested over 20+ years in many aspects of setting up shop on another planet. The specific subtheme to which this topic belongs is about political systems that might develop on Mars. It is likely that there will be humans from major space faring nations, including China, India, Russia and the United States, and possibly the European Union and Japan.ChatGPT
Thank you for providing that context. The prospect of establishing a human presence on Mars is indeed a fascinating and complex one, and the discussion on political systems for Mars is a crucial aspect of this endeavor. Considering the diverse backgrounds and cultures of potential Martian settlers from various nations, it becomes even more intriguing.In light of this, it's essential to tailor discussions on political systems to the unique challenges and opportunities presented by Martian colonization. Here are some additional considerations specific to Mars:
International Collaboration: Given the international makeup of Martian settlers, a system of governance that emphasizes collaboration and cooperation among nations will be essential. Building on existing models of international collaboration in space exploration, such as the International Space Station, could serve as a starting point.
Shared Values and Governance Principles: Establishing a set of shared values and principles for Martian governance, including democratic representation, respect for human rights, and sustainable resource management, can help ensure the peaceful coexistence of different nationalities.
Territorial and Resource Rights: Determining how Martian territories and resources will be allocated and managed is critical. Developing equitable frameworks for resource sharing and territorial claims could help prevent conflicts.
Resilience and Self-Sufficiency: Mars presents unique challenges, including its harsh environment and distance from Earth. Political systems should prioritize resilience and self-sufficiency, including the ability to respond to emergencies and ensure the well-being of Martian settlers.
Scientific Diplomacy: Encouraging scientific collaboration and the sharing of knowledge and research can foster a sense of unity and progress among settlers. Scientific diplomacy can be a powerful tool for building relationships and trust.
Adaptability: Martian governance structures should be adaptable to changing circumstances and the evolving needs of the Martian society. Flexibility and the ability to incorporate lessons learned will be crucial.
Mars-Specific Laws and Regulations: Developing laws and regulations specific to Martian conditions, including issues related to environmental protection, property rights, and bioethical considerations, will be necessary.
It's an exciting prospect to think about how humans from different nations can come together to establish a thriving society on Mars while ensuring peace and cooperation. I look forward to hearing more ideas and insights from fellow forum members on this topic.
User
Thank you for this very nice opening for our new topic! Best wishes for similar success as you work with your thousands of other fans, world wide.ChatGPT
You're very welcome! I'm glad I could contribute to the discussion, and I'm here whenever you and the forum members have more questions or need further insights. Best wishes for a productive and enlightening discussion on the forum, and thank you for your kind words! If you ever have more topics or questions to explore, feel free to reach out. Have a great time with your Mars-related discussions, and I'm here to assist whenever needed.
(th)
Offline
tahanson43206,
Our military strength is actively being depleted by spending money on pointless gadgetry of dubious military value, using the military as a social experiment that real fighting men want no part of, thus the massive recruiting shortfalls and inability to retain trained personnel, and funding multiple foreign wars that have no hope of reaching conclusions amenable to the interests of the involved parties. Worst of all, there is no coherent fighting doctrine at the present time because no clear concept of operations has been established. We have a lot of sophisticated technology that other nations typically lack, but no doctrine and training to use it to decisive advantage. We're at least as good as any other nation at using air power, but that's about it.
No amount of technology will ever be a suitable replacement for a willingness to fight, an understanding of why and when to fight, combined with a practical repertoire of tactics and strategies (derived from concept of operations) to exercise military power to achieve decisive victory. All the fundamentals required to wage war successfully have been studiously ignored because they're very un-sexy and un-fun, until applying them is a matter of life or death. Nobody gets promoted in peacetime by making sure all their equipment is in working order and all necessary training has been conducted. We punish companies that maintain the factories, machinery, and personnel to provide us with the implements of war during our time of great need.
We'll spend any amount of money to acquire the next best gadget, but we're at a point where half of our Air Force's aircraft aren't flyable, our Navy couldn't maintain presence to assure freedom of navigation if their lives depended upon it, and our Army cannot retain its soldiers. If you spend more time painting rocks than shooting your rifle and practicing battle tactics, why would you stay in the Army? You can paint things for a handsome profit in the civilian world and shoot your rifle during your leisure time, all without having to kowtow to the capricious edicts of an obnoxious organization forcing you to attend "sensitivity training". Our officer corps fixates on superficial appearances or purchasing the next flashy new war toy that costs a lot more money but doesn't do anything appreciably better than the existing equipment.
I have no faith in our intelligence apparatus' ability to separate personal desires / proclivities / politics from prudent assessment of credible threats, nor our procurement system's ability to develop / test / manufacture hardware suitable to task in sufficient quantity and at a reasonable cost, nor our general officers' abilities to orchestrate the activities to successfully wage a war against a similarly capable adversary. During WWII the entire US military, operating with about 16 times more personnel than it has today, was run with fewer than 1/10th of the present general officer staff employed today, and those men gave us decisive victory over our enemies.
As to strong shared cultural values, that starts in the home. When most children had a pair of parents who could put aside their personal failings at least long enough to raise their children, and believed in a common view of morality- what constitutes acceptable behavior and what does not, we had at least that much going for us. Today, we tell boys that they can be girls, that everyone is a victim or oppressor / oppressed, we encourage single parent households, and half the country is looking for reasons to excuse the behavior of terrorists who mass murdered a bunch of civilians.
Offline
For kbd512 re Post #2
Thanks for engaging with this topic!
This post is to acknowledge your contribution. I'm planning to read it carefully later today.
Given the theme of the forum, when I read your post, I'll be looking for any hints you may have provided about how to configure the structure of a community at Mars to increase chances of an extended period of peaceful development of the planet, and a corresponding extended absence of large scale violence.
***
In preparation for reading the post by kbd512 (#2), I have asked Google to collect snippets about Violence as a possible component of human nature ... The list of citations below may be worth exploring, if a reader has an interest in exploring this idea.
About 33,100,000 results (0.46 seconds)
Based on the idea of human nature, scientists do agree violence is inherent in humans. Among prehistoric humans, there is archaeological evidence for both contentions of violence and peacefulness as primary characteristics.Violence - Wikipedia
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Violence
About featured snippets
•
Feedback
People also ask
Is violence a part of human nature?
Is human violence nature or nurture?
What is the concept and nature of violence?
Is violence learned or natural?
FeedbackThe Better Angels of Our Nature
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › The_Better_Angels_o...
The idea that we live in an exceptionally violent time is an illusion created by the media's relentless coverage of violence, coupled with our brain's evolved ...Human nature
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Human_nature
Examples of properties that count as parts of human nature on the nomological definition ... The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Viking ...
Chinese philosophy · Christian theology · Contemporary philosophySeville Statement on Violence
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Seville_Statement_on...
... human violence is biologically determined". ... "It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our ...Aggressionism
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Aggressionism
Aggressionism is a theory that describes complex behavior of human nature that involves strong beliefs in one's own ideology. ... "When Violence Pays: A Cost- ...
Concept · Cause of War · Examples of Political Leaders... · Source of AggressionismKiller ape theory
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Killer_ape_theory
The theory gained notoriety for suggesting that the urge to be violent was a fundamental part of human psychology. The hunting hypothesis is often ...Violence in literature
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Violence_in_literature
This, in turn, raises the question as to whether violence is a product of a mental affliction, and if, in fiction, violent characters are symbolic of underlying ...Culture of violence theory
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Culture_of_violence_...
The culture of violence theory addresses the pervasiveness of specific violent patterns within a societal dimension. The concept of violence being ingrained ...Aggression
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Aggression
"Affective and predatory violence: A bimodal classification system of human aggression and violence". Aggression and Violent Behavior. 10 (1): 1–30. doi ...Is violence a 'natural part' of human nature - Archaeology Wiki
archaeology.wiki
https://www.archaeology.wiki › blog › 2023/10/20 › i...
1 day ago — The level of violence among ancient human communities in the Middle East fluctuated greatly throughout history and depended on the social ...
The aim of this topic is to attempt to identify social policy that takes into account the natural tendency toward violence that occurs in human beings, and seeks to instill in new citizens sufficient self-control to be able to channel the flows of energy in constructive directions.
It seems to me likely that the ability to use force to solve social problems is (must be) inherent in the genetic code of humans, because only those who are able to employ force to solve problems can have lived to pass on their genes.
However, further reading may provide additional insight into the extent this concept may be correct.
(th)
Offline
If Mars were to follow models of what was done on Earth then maybe. You could buy off any rivals, 'chequebook diplomacy'. You could ban islam problems, any cult that wants to bomb cartoonists or religion group that wants to kill writers like Rushdie is restricted, religion groups watched as part of the anti-cult movement. Anrgy religion groups might be watched as part of minitoring attacks on people's free thought and the religious "brainwashing theory" freedom away FROM islamist slave pedophile terrorist religion. The people on Mars might have an up-to-date military system and have bunkers for everyone in case of attack. Mars might have its own 'Holy' place that is put under protection from powers on Earth and never attacked because of so many political layers and levels of foreign military protection. Mars might have some type of public media or education teaching everyone how a war on Mars would be pointless, it is too difficult a place to survive and war is a waste of time, blood and treasure. Mars might be too distant and remote, its colonies too far away to influence. Mars might have the latest super-Robot to protect itself it might be part of political alliances.
Mars if it feels under threat it might follow a Swiss or Singapore model, it could ban jihadi islamic types or have bunkers and guns but also mega bankers which buy everyone off electronic bags of cash. Singapore might also be considered one of those multi-cultures which works, they are in a position of trade, banking, shipping. They are surrounded by others but also very well up to date on military abilities with suppliers from the United States, Germany, Israel and sometimes Singapore is said to do business with anyone. Their Army, Navy and Airforce is new some of the latest designs for Navy Patrol vessel in the region, multirole air superior strike fighter, they would be criticized for having 'Less Freedoms' but they are an Asian culture. Malays who are predominant islamic were virtually excluded from conscription from the beginning of the Singapore draft. Mars might have overseas agreement for people at some site or rented base on another part of the planet or another off-world location just as many of the Singapore's air units are located abroad or take part in joint police military exercises with other groups or nations. The Swiss for example are another group of 'rich' multi-culture and in case of war the people of Switzerland put a lot of defensive money into defending their unique multi-cultural society, they are one of those multi-cultures which work, government gave everyone a bunker they have nuclear bunkers for all. Swiss operated the idea of Schweizer Reduit or the French: Réduit national or Italian Ridotto nazionale a network of defensive lines dug in around the country, they have high gun ownership like the USA, if things got bad with the Soviets in the ColdWar a network of nuclear bunkers some would argue that Swiss banking acts are immoral, the Swiss do business with anyone the USA, British, French, Germany, Russia or North Korea. The Swiss were not part of any Allies or Axis and stayed neutral during World War II, Switzerland retained the neutral but defensive concept for its plans of resistance against a putative Soviet invasion during the Cold War
The planet Mars might have a religious art tourism site which is respected, it would be surrounded and protected by another military power or powers. For some reason an arrangement is there to protect the 'Holy' place and this religion site might be under protection of a military Space-Force power or various national powers. This new faith might even be a mix of an AI chatbot Artificial Intelligence religion, a machine giving messages of 'Spirit' and God. A religious Mars site with the status of a protectorate, free-ish but part of an unincorporated territory. For example Vatican City is of different status to Puerto Rico won in a war against the Spanish Empire, the Vatican of Italy is just 'Holy' or 'Holy Ground' surrounded by a powerful modernized country Italy. I am not promoting religious faiths here but religion has been discussed on Mars colonization topics, it is up to you want to believe and I have posted a lot on the hypocrisy of religions the Roman Catholic Church and Vatican with its crimes, its pedophiles it thieves. However despite the corrupt the Vatican is respected as a 'Holy' place, the 'Holy See' moved all its wonders of art to Rome, the Vatican is the jurisdiction of the Pope, they also hold many heritage items and artist wonders which attract tourists. Italy surrounding the Vatican has one the biggest military powers in Europe comparable sometimes to French and British forces, the biggest standing military force in the European Union. Even if some silly dictator nation got the stupid idea to invade the Vatican and steal its riches it is surrounded by 'Italy' a strong military comparable to a large US State, they launch satellite on the Vega (rocket) and could probably have Nuclear ICBMs made in weeks but chose not to be a Nuclear power, they already have Infantry fighting vehicles, Main battle tanks, APCs which can be transported to any part of the world, they are allied with the USA, the British, the French, have an agreement of sorts with Switzerland who normally refuse to ally with anyone, an alliance with Austria, Slovenia, NATO, the Italians have old effective ColdWar era fighter bombers like the Tornado, Maritime patrol, Attack Helicopters, a country with Hercules transport aircraft, the Eurofighter Typhoon, V/STOL capable Harriers, the Italians buy multi role Fifth-generation fighter Aircraft from the USA like the F-35 Lightning. In the Navy there is Italian aircraft carrier Cavour, Attack Submarines, Robot unmanned aerial vehicles, Patrol Corvettes, multipurpose frigates of the Italian Navy. Italy is not the strongest military power but it is enough of a power that would scare away an bandit nation from attacking and trying to steal the Vatican riches. Even during peacetime event of political unrest the Italians have enough thug looking Carabinieri Riot Police to deal with any rioters or hooligans during peaceful time, and for some reason the Vatican has its own Mercenary Army from Switzerland the Papal Swiss Guard who dress in these traditional funny look medieval style costumes. With a 'Holy-Site' surrounded by so many layers of protection even if a group wanted to invade and steal money and art what would any group gain or nation by attacking a 'Holy' nation or State with so many layers of outside protection.
A fight in Siberia is almost pointless so Fighting on Mars might be too hostile and it might just be 'pointless', the region of Siberia on Earth is naturally hostile it really wants to kill you and people are so busy surviving they usually don't have much time for any type of successful war. Siberia it has seen some war but not much, over time perhaps people decided it is not worth the effort. Siberia is so hostile and distant that nobody really knew how many died at the Tunguska event. Fights might be left to a robotic machine with an angry looking face, fight done by way of electronic cars fighting another electronic airplane drone, humans might lose interest in wasting their lives. Siberia been a place mostly associated with a contrast between the Native life and Russia-Soviet culture bringing modernization of sorts, industry, trains and mining, dichotomy contrast to a raw frontier, wild plant and animal life, a nature reserve of sorts with wild Bears, wild Tigers, it has a history of moving native tribes that lived off the land, nomadic peoples who knew how to survive the harsh land. The Mongolian horde might have been the last time they seen true brutality the invasions from Mongol Empire, there are other battles and war invasion of Slav Cossacks, the Turkish Khanate Turkestani islamic invaders the crazy Tsar Ivan the Terrible or Ivan Grozny Tzar of all Russia eventually claims it and he was such a Tyrant and feared nobody argued with him, when people were around him he was prone to paranoia, rage, and episodic outbreaks of mental instability and brutal violence. The culture of Russians expand into Siberia and wanted the Siberian Natives to Hunt, the Coaascks and Russians also hunt, people go to trade, to buy and sell fur of sables, foxes, and ermines. Older languages and cultures might be replaced as Mars opens up to a more modern dominant culture, Siberia became modern joining part of a Trans-Siberian Railway. To take over Siberia was too hostile a land for some.
Siberia has been hit but it seems to conquer its would-be conquerors, the Japanese tried to invade for a while but they have been far more successful at fighting and beating the Russians out at sea, it was not for lack of effort industry power zaibatsu such as Mitsubishi, Mitsui and others had opened offices but it was costing Japan and they were losing 900 million yen. Kolchak fought against the Bolsheviks but then runs, Kolchak's forces retreated to Siberia. Fallout from World War 1 the intervention tore Japan's wartime unity to shreds, political factions fighting leading to the army and government being involved in bitter back and forth controversy, the natural cold living land of Siberia itself wanted to kill Japanese many Casualties and Losses, thousands of Japanese injured and sick and frostbitten, thousands died of disease,it was so bad they even considered to give back the North part of the Sakhalin island to Russia, during WW2 near the end of the war Russia comes back in and retakes the island, some Japanese and Korean and Russian ethnicity ran from the fighting and some stayed, tens of thousands of Sakhalin Koreans remained in the Soviet Union an island becoming part of the USSR. In another anti-Soviet revolt in 1929 rather than stay in a hostile place and fight many people just flee to Mongolia. WW1 might have simply been a clash of competing powers in Siberia, a growing Japan which wanted to become part of the Empire club with Imperial Military influence in rule and the aversion, distaste, antipathy to Communism in Russia, the socialism, the marxist movements. Siberia doesn't care about human politics, it is a history of hostile it has seen Communists and Imperial Empires, it is naturally hostile and wants to kill man but Compared to the rest of Russia, the Caucasus Mountains at the intersection of Asia and Europe and the Balkans, the Eastern Europe frontier of Ukraine, Greece, Turkey the region of Serbia as a whole is relatively peaceful, over time people have tried to fight but might have considered the more mature position that fighting here is pointless.
Mars might be a far off new land Australia, Greenland, Iceland, Alaska, even if it begins to be dominated by certain cultures the sites on Mars a too far away frontier land. Monarchy and Temples and viceroy and Nation might fall again, back home a distraction a shift in power, left vs right politics gets worse, a long civil war between unitarians and federalists. Just as Soviet, USSR relics and CCCP logos have been left out there in space or Robots on the Moon the original Nations and Companies that first conquer Mars might decay and become older and sicker, Mars might declare independence from its first cultures like the loss of Anglo-American influence in Afghanistan the rise again of islamo jihadi terrorism, death of Chinese Dynasty and new leaders rise, Spanish Empires having less influence. The old Iberian Union dies with caudillos (military strongmen) the old Santa Hermandad is gone, Síndico, Alcalde, regidor or regedor, the cabildo or ayuntamiento and new AI Robo Cyborg Mayors come in for a post-colonial age. Mars might even have its own folk hero figures, its George Washington, they might have their own form of 'Paul' belongs to House Atreides in a fictional Dune universe, their own 'Sebastianism' found in islands far off Africa, São Tomé and Príncipe, the faith which today permeates the Lusophone culture. A new culture of AI and Cyborg and machine man arrives, the new Cowboy rancher and conquistadors need to feed themselves not fight and are now too busy as farmers. Mars it might have new colonists culture a people fleeing to a new place with cash and fortune to start again. The nations or companies which first settle Mars might rot with their own scandals back home, the guys building rockets and spaceships thanked by a corrupted government rule with utter betrayal. Mars might just be a new world, a considerate place of peace because people want to get away from war and start new, different peoples working together to survive, less violent history and more like Alaska, Iceland, Greenland, a new front. Mars might just be wild and untamed, geographical area near or beyond a boundary, a hostile but peaceful land like the Australian outback. Mars colonization might have small numbers of human populations, it might be naturally peaceful with less crime, if raids or crimes or attacks do happen then borders turned into defensive boundaries but a life for bandits and raiders might be too difficult on Mars the land might be naturally quiet.
Any Dictator Nation or King or Empire might give up on a far off frontier and be more distracted by events at home. As the Latin Hispanic culture entered decline new cultures briefly arrived in Latin America, the British Guiana, Dutch Republiek Suriname, the French Guiana site where rockets now launch from. A Dictator or King or President looking at Mars might think its too big too far a land and just not worth it and leave Mars colonization to go about its natural way. In Latin America there were places where military and dictator and elite and Kings could not go, places beyond where a viceyolty could exert its rule. Parts of Argentina, Brazil, Chile might have been too far away for true Portugal conquests, it might have been too far away for Spain's 'crazy' kings and distraction Napoléon Bonaparte, there might be other distractions by other military leaders in history and Emperor the guy in France for a time he conquered much of Europe. Some say Fernando VII was far worse than an inbred Habsburg ruler, even speculation he might have been a drunk a drug addict or lost his mojo, they said he was too fat to ride a horse 'The Felon King', the Spanish take much of the world and he starts to lose it all, the Rebellious colonies, corruption and sleaze and bankruptcy, warring factions, like fat Henry VIII women started to die around him and Ferdinand VII married four times, his first three wives died, a political rival in his mother who fanned the flames of rebellion and revenge. More conspiracy gossip talk on the streets and rumors a dead wife and Maria Antonia’s mother had poisoned her and finally the Spain guy loses any power to influence foreign lands when Napoleon beats him up. The nations and companies that first colonize Mars might be distracted by their own unrest and scandals back home and real conspiracies. A chaos time for Spanish culture also Manuel de Godoy disastrous foreign policy contributed to a series of misfortunes and defeats, he ran away from Spain into a long exile, dying in Paris in 1851, other bloodlines of Princes and Princess and Queens and Kings would try to flee to South America and escape with fortunes. A far away Mars land might become a place beyond influence, 'Wild West' going beyond the edge of a cultural military influence, beyond a government backed settled area, the Base and Sites of study at the South Pole on Earth and Frontier Thesis or American frontier-ism might be part of a new mindset on Mars forming something similar the culture of American democracy and wild ungoverned land like Alaska, Iceland, Greenland or the Australia outback.
Mars might be part of an alliance of political agreement, protective influence, of political or religion types or Anti-religion, a political agreement that helps it live in a world of peace, for example New Zealand, post war Japan. It might join a political alliance to balance against a looming Political or Religious threat, the expansion of a Religion Death Cult Empire or as the West Capitalist Alliance, the West of Europe, Oceania Partners, the USA and Canada alliance, standing up against a Communist Bloc and the Soviet Bloc, a Western leaning alliance within Mars might have its political splits like when Canada did not agree with the Vietnam war or the positions of France, an Eastern. Within a Socialism Bloc there might be their own splits the Anti-Soviet communist or socialist states the Nixon policy of Sino-Soviet split transformed the bi-polar cold war into a tri-polar one and made the USSR weaker, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was Russian Communist influenced but also doing its own thing, Poland now had its Pope speaking against Communists and Polish workers protests social change against Russian influence, eventually the German Berlin Wall falls in 1989 during the Peaceful Revolution. New Zealand and post war Japan are peaceful countries which both enjoyed the protective influence from the USA in a post WW2 world, a new colony on Mars might be part of some alliance with an Artificial Intelligence machine government they live under protection of the Cyborg Robot villages and cities nearby, Mars have old relics from political parties no longer in existence might join whatever is the new rising power or nation state.
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-10-21 11:33:37)
Offline
tahanson43206,
If I wanted to reduce the probability of war by maintaining strong community cohesion, something of vital importance to living in an environment as hostile as Mars is, I would start with a training program intended to promote the value of community over self. This is indoctrination with a purpose by any other name. In this case, it's being used to create the ties that bond. If we need to have idols for our idolaters, then it's better to idolize duty and responsibility to your fellow humans over personal wants and desires. Humanity didn't make it this far because everyone was working towards different purposes. As someone who has seen religion from both perspectives, people are going to worship something, so if they don't believe in a god or gods, worshiping the idea of the vital necessity of serving each other, is a better than average use of religion to achieve a common purpose- namely, creating a second branch of human civilization on another planet to help assure the ultimate survival of the human race.
You have to have some level of shared communal values, as you already pointed out, or you're working towards contradictory and ultimately adversarial purposes, which is what causes war. All the basest instincts are also survival instincts, so you need something equally powerful to replace that, or you're not achieving much. Shared survival of your people and nation is the only equally powerful motivator when compared to personal survival.
Citizenship should require service to others first, full stop. You don't have to serve in the military, but unless you serve others before yourself, you cannot appreciate what it means to place the welfare of your community above your own. You're only serving your own selfish interests and desires, which is anathema to humanity's survival when taken to the extreme (the only place it can ever go when the chips are down). You can't understand that there's something greater than yourself, which is worthy of serving, until you actually do it.
In my case, I joined the military when I was very young- too young to vote. Throughout my military service, I refrained from voting or otherwise voicing any opinion about politics or what we were doing. This was my "learning phase"- meaning, an "observe how things work first, before passing judgement phase". A lot of people think that they can "skip" this phase and go straight to opinion and belief without any first-hand knowledge or experience. This is sort of like a brand new 2nd Lieutenant stating, "it's been my experience". Well, he or she doesn't have any of that "experience", so their opinion is based upon nothing but personal belief. At this time, I had no set / formulated political opinions. My parents voiced no strong political opinions of their own when I was a child. I was out of the military before learning that my mother was a Republican and my father was a Democrat. They did have and voice strong opinions related to serving others, to personal responsibility, and to showing love and kindness towards others, because those were the tenets of their Catholic faith.
That is where I started off in life. My time in the military absolutely did color my opinion of what I have observed since then, but not in a way that I deem deleterious to the over-arching proximal end-goal of ensuring that our American Experiment continues. I ended up becoming a Republican as a result of my disgust and revulsion towards the blatant display of immorality of the Democrats, who have no cohesive set of values they share amongst them and don't seem to place much value in the country that gave them everything they have. If you don't stand for something, then you will inevitably fall victim to any bad idea that comes along, because you can be convinced to do anything if there's no morality attached to what you're doing. Now all I see "emoting", almost always anger and hatred over some perceived sleight or imbalance of power. Do they seek to attain power to restore balance or correct what they view as past mistakes by behaving better? No. They want to punish people who threaten their absolute power and silence others, often their own party membership, over differences of opinion. This is placing personal belief above all other considerations- the mark of someone who serves no one but themselves, but wants to assert moral superior to others who don't share their opinions.
I don't share or agree with or practice the religion of my parents, but I still appreciate the entire concept of having morality and what it means to be a person of good morals. I questioned my need to attend church or participate in Catholicism since I was about 4 years old. My disagreements were not over the value of morality, but the behavior of the Catholics or Catholic Church. None of my 3 younger siblings ever did such a thing, and all still attend church with varying degrees of frequency. My oldest younger brother is a classical liberal, now disillusioned with the Democrats and communism. My other younger brother is a Democrat. My younger sister is a Republican. None of them have aborted their children or engaged in casual "I'm a free spirit" relationships of no substance. Only my oldest younger brother is not married with children, almost entirely due to his severe ongoing health issues and extended time spent in academia as a "starving student / teacher", before moving to the private sector. I think even he has a girlfriend now, although I could be wrong. I don't pry much into the personal lives of others, because it's none of my business. If they want me to know something, they will tell me. I'm the only one who has ever served in the military or government, to the best of my knowledge, excluding my grandfathers or their brothers, all of whom also served in the military. My mother or cousin is the closest analog to me, having been a defense contractor. My daughter probably won't be in the military at this point, but she's still considering joining the US Air Force or US Space Force (the sponsor for her JROTC program, administered by US Air Force officers) as an option. My daughter's best friend, well, she's pretty dead set on joining the Navy like her father.
Personal military experience and beliefs aside, the questions surrounding how to build community and espirit de corps are important ones to have good answers for. The training to live and thrive on Mars won't be a summer camp for fair weather friends. Anything less than complete dedication to the mission is unacceptable and people will die needlessly without that devotion to duty. We spend money and risk lives to accomplish great things. Escapism is not an accomplishment. It's fleeing bad decision making instead of dealing with the consequences. The people who founded America did so to establish personal freedoms, to reinforce the importance of government serving the people, not the other way around, and to establish domestic tranquility and abundance. They believed that their people would rise to meet any challenge presented to them, that they would adapt, and subsequently overcome. There would be no kings or queens, no aristocracy, no odious trappings of society created from the belief that one man or woman was better than the next. There were many personal failings involved and there was nothing perfect about America, yet they struggled and persevered to create a "more perfect union". They never believed they were perfect or would become perfect, rather that the purpose of pursuit of perfection was to become better than they were yesterday.
10 years ago, only 1 in 4 soldiers surveyed said they thought our nation's Army was headed in the right direction. This was almost entirely due to the ineffectiveness of senior Army leadership. Few other reasons were given. There were no great complaints about equipment or pay or even deployment schedules. They believed in their cause and were willing to fight, but coherent leadership was lacking. We're unwilling to relieve officers of their command, after they prove ineffective on the battlefield. The senior enlisted stated that our Army was coddling its junior personnel and lacked military discipline. Again, the military is not supposed to be a social experiment. What does it say about a nation, that it's fighting men are perfectly willing to fight and die, take no real issue with their equipment or mission, but they can't get leaders who understand how and when to fight? Something is deeply wrong and requires correction. That's what it says.
Why state all of this? What do I ultimately want?
1. A return to the fundamentals that made human societies so successful, whether military or civilian or technological (there's a proper time and place for every human endeavor)
2. Recognition of the intrinsic value of humanity, and to further our cause of living and thriving, both here on Earth and any other place we may go
3. To create or restore a society that is moral, kind, and capable of truly great and profound things (such as successfully colonizing an entirely different planet, tens of millions of miles from Earth)
I believe we are capable of all of these things, but not if we continue to rerun through all of our past failures of reason, belief, morality, and refusal to accept responsibility. Dr Jordan Peterson said something to the effect of, "Bearing a very heavy burden is the only proximate thing to giving life greater meaning that I know of." If that's not correct, then it's the closest thing to correct that I'm aware of. Without meaning, there is no purpose. Without purpose, there is no reason to exist. Without a reason to exist, anything goes and society ceases to function. Some people choose their purpose in life. For others, it's given to them. Either way, a cohesive society which is capable of withstanding the test of time, stems from an underlying ethos and logos that is moral and kind, but which holds its government and citizenry responsible and accountable for their own actions and for the direction of society. There is no historical record of any society, which also withstood the test of time, whose people and leaders were not moral and kind.
Offline
This topic is redundant. The topic titles "war" is about PREVENTING war. Creating a new topic about the same subject but just a different name is very Orwellian. In real life, the United States changed the name of the Department of War to the Department of Defence. But the Vietnam War cannot be called defence.
To start: if you divide Mars into multiple countries, each with their own military, that WILL result in war. Period. Full stop. Tom mentioned human nature, this is human nature. I already said how to prevent war: no one possesses weapons of war, and a federal government with a military that acts as police to prevent cities from engaging war with eachother. And look at history: during the American War of Independence, two British corporations, the Hudson's Bay Company and the Northwest Company, engaged in war with eachother. After the War of Independence was over the British military had to stop the corporations. Federal military on Mars will have to do that as well.
I also said the federal government will have a land office. That land office will allocate land. A central authority that allocates land prevents disputes over who owns land.
All wars are over money/resources and power. All, period. If someone tells you a certain war is over a principle, they're lying to you.
Example: Russia has taken land from Ukraine. They wanted to take all Ukraine, either wipe out the population and colonize with Russians, or convert the population to Russian. Failing that they too Crimea and east Ukraine Oblast. Crimea is warm enough in winter that its coast is free of ice all year, allowing all season navy bases. Crimea also has natural gas deposits, and its warm climate allows a profitable tourist industry. East Ukraine has deposits of coal, oil, natural gas, iron ore, copper, gold, lead, and other resources. Iron and coal in close proximity allows cost effective steel smelting industry. East Ukraine was heavily industrialised, manufacturing military equipment like tanks, ballistic missiles, and ammunition. Before Maidan, 25% of ammunition for Russian combat rifles came from a factory in Luhansk.
A federal government authority to allocate land will prevent war over land with iron deposit (eg hematite concretions), white sand (for glass), or salt. The bottom of the dried ocean basin will have salt deposits, which will be layered just like on Earth. One salt layer will be potash, potassium salts needed as fertilizer in greenhouses.
When I was a child, and when I was early 20s, carrying a concealed weapon was still illegal in the United States. Open carry was also illegal. Arming everyone will result in armed conflict. I don't object to owning a gun to defend your home, but don't carry it in public. Most people will be responsible, but it only takes one to commit murder. And if a conflict happens, such as a white man stealing a purse from a black woman, or an attache case from a black man, and the victim chases the thief to recover his/her property, an untrained bystander could assume the black person is the criminal. This has happened more times than I can relate. That's why untrained/unlicensed civilians cannot be allowed to carry lethal weapons in public. When tasers first came out, I thought this was the ideal solution. If the wrong person is attacked, it can be resolved. But dead is permanent. Unfortunately some brain-dead idiot here in Canada made tasers illegal.
I'm sure kbd512 wants to recite the NRA argument for weapons. I have to point out more people are killed by firearms in the US than any other developed country. And that's per capita. The number of mass murders of children in the US is extreme. There wasn't even one when I was a child. This has resulted in calls by Democrats to take away weapons, while Republicans want to increase weapons. Neither addresses the real issues. The US is giving a drug called Ritalin to children. The excuse is children are hyperactive. But children are supposed to be very active. Drugging children is lazy parents who don't know how to be parents. A known side effect of that drug is "aggressive, irritable, depressed, anxious or tense". (source NHS). And 1% of individuals taking the drug will be dangerous, prone to mass murder. The solution is to stop drugging children! But the manufacturer of that drug has a strong lobby in Congress, they don't want to take responsibility.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2023-10-22 08:36:35)
Offline
Last night I watched the movie "Wyatt Earp" with my girlfriend. The movie did not whitewash the old West. It was bruital and violent. Guns were banned within towns. And you saw why: troublemakers shooting people. The lead character was an asshole.
YouTube: Wyatt Earp [1994] Official Movie Trailer
Offline
For kbd512 re #3
As to strong shared cultural values, that starts in the home.
Post #3 seems (as I read it) to be similar to Mars_B4_Moon's historical perspective, in that it lists a number of things that Mars settlers should try to avoid.
I highlighted your line about shared values, because it suggests there may be some specific ideas waiting to appear in this topic.
Moses ** tried ** to set up some shared values, and they've received at least lip service for some time, but they don't seem to be more than guidelines these days, and totally ignored by many.
In one of the links in Post #4 (the link about Archeology at the bottom of the quote) I found a (to me quite interesting) report on the incidents of violence over a very long period of time. The conclusion seems to be that violence increases as the size of the community increases. That sort of makes sense, but the skulls provide long lasting evidence to support the conjecture.
The bottom line for Mars ** may ** be to avoid putting too many people together at one time.
On the ** other ** hand, major cities like New York, London and major Asian cities don't seem to be doing much war making these days. They appear to have plenty of violence going on at the individual level, and I expect we'll always have that.
Thanks (again) for your thoughtful and detailed contributions to this topic.
I'm hoping our contributors can (somehow) get past pointing out past failures of human groups and individuals, and start listing policies and practices that would increase chances of a successful experiment on Mars.
On the ** other ** hand, I readily acknowledge that a deep knowledge of all the ways humans can fail to live together amicably is vital for the health of any society away from Earth.
(th)
Offline
kbd512 mentioned shared values. This is actually a critical issue society is facing today. Many nations throughout history had a single culture, single set of shared values. The idea was strength through unity. However that ignores diversity. Britain had problems in the middle ages as they changed religion often. First they were all Catholic, all pegans were persecuted. Then King Henry VIII created the Anglican Church and required everyone to change faith. Then his daughter Mary (Bloody Mary) became queen and required everyone to change back to Catholic. Then Mary's half sister Elizabeth I became queen and required everyone to change back to Anglican. With each change, many people were killed.
The United States was founded with a premise that each state would have its own values. The Union would function collectively for peace and prosperity, but each state would have different culture, different values. Canada was established with similar principles, having provinces with authority similar to a state. Unfortunately today many people have forgotten this. Certain people are trying to push a "woke" agenda, trying to wipe out American cultures for the one they want to promote. Ironically the woke people claim to advocate diversity when in reality they demonize anyone who disagrees with even the tiniest portion of their agenda. We need to embrace true diversity.
Offline
Amen.
Done.
Offline
Why state all of this? What do I ultimately want?
1. A return to the fundamentals that made human societies so successful, whether military or civilian or technological (there's a proper time and place for every human endeavor)
2. Recognition of the intrinsic value of humanity, and to further our cause of living and thriving, both here on Earth and any other place we may go
3. To create or restore a society that is moral, kind, and capable of truly great and profound things (such as successfully colonizing an entirely different planet, tens of millions of miles from Earth)
This is idealistic. Humanity has had violence for a very long time. tahanson43206 posted links to translations of the Iliad in the other thread. Homer wrote the Iliad in the 8th century BC. I've been looking at Sumeria. Ancestors of the Sumerians lived in a valley that is now the bottom of the Persian Gulf. Lake Aggasiz formed in North America when ice of the ice age melted. When that drained into the ocean is raised sea level. Doggerland was flooded, now the North Sea and English Channel. The same sea level rise flooded the Persian Gulf, forcing people there to move upstream. That was between 7,000 BC and 6,500 BC (9,000 to 8,500 years ago). Archaeologists call them the Ubaid people. They invented irrigation, allowing dramatic increase in population. Archaeologists call them Sumerian after they built the first city. The words "Sumer" and "Sumerian" is what the Semetic people called them. They called themselves the Black Headed People. From incriptions on clay tables. Archaeologists don't know why, but painting on pottery always showed them with the same skin colour as people in the area today, but always jet black hair like people from India. They used that name for themselves during both the Ubaid and Sumerian periods. They didn't see a difference. DNA analysis shows commonality with people from the Indus Valley and Nepal. Before the Persian Gulf flooded, the mouths of the Indus and Tigris rivers were a 3 day walk if you walk 24 hours per day. One week if you sleep at night. They didn't have electricity so 1 week is more likely, but can be done easily. We don't know when they arrived in the valley now under the Persian Gulf, just when they were forced to leave. So we're talking a very long time ago.
Ubaid people farmed wheat, barley, chick peas, cucumbers, carrots, common vetch (a form of bean), grapes, dates, figs, garlic, onions, and many vegetables we would recognize today. They raised goats, sheep, and pigs. They looked down on any farmer that kept cattle because they could escape and cause damage to a neighbor's farm. But that means cattle were available.
The oldest evidence of wheat is in the Levant, 26,000 years old. Wheat is a cross breed of two grains: einkorn and emmer. These were natural tall grasses, selectively bred by farmers for thousands of years to increase yield. The cross breed was sterile but higher yield. Eventually a fertile form of wheat formed, and farmers propagated that. So a field with wheat pollen means a human planted it.
Göbekli Tepe in Turkey is beloved to have been inhabited 9,500 to 8,000 BC (11,500 to 10,000 years ago) but carbon dating is based on organic materials in the clay and mud it was burried in. They can't date carved stone. The stone pillars may have been carved a long time before that. One field within walking distance has evidence of wheat dated 22,000 years ago. So it was built by farmers, not hunter-gatherers.
Sumerians started capturing people as slaves as soon as cities were built. Violence is that old.
I'll look up the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2023-10-21 20:31:14)
Offline
This is a translation using excerpts from several copies. Tablets are broken or missing. The story was originally several stories, but combined into one by the time of old Babylon. This is a PDF copy, 51 pages long. The story originates from about 2,100 BC.
The Epic of Gilgamesh
Last edited by RobertDyck (2023-10-21 21:34:20)
Offline
RobertDyck,
This topic is redundant. The topic titles "war" is about PRECENTING war. Creating a new topic about the same subject but just a different name is very Orwellian. In real life, the United States changed the name of the Department of War to the Department of Defence. But the Vietnam War cannot be called defence.
You're entitled to your opinion. Other people are entitled to post in topics they think are important. You've engaged in a bunch of childish name-calling, but presented a view of the world and history so skewed as to be laughable- "World History, According to RobertDyck".
I asked a very simple question, which you steadfastly refused to answer, because all the rest of your anti-logic immediately falls apart as soon as the question is truthfully answered:
What if some group of people living on Mars refuse to submit to this scheme of yours, because they don't want to be part of your childish utopia?
Your all-powerful central government will start a W-A-R with them. It doesn't take much thought to figure out how the application of your beliefs will create the very thing it's supposed to prevent.
The communist North Vietnamese government killed a bunch of people in South Viet Nam and foreign countries who didn't want to be communists. We went to bat for the people of South Viet Nam and the cause of stopping communism's endless mass murder spree against its own practicioners. Unfortunately, the Republic of South Viet Nam didn't want to go to bat for themselves, a sore point for the US throughout our participation in the war. Eventually, the American public grew tired of losing so many of their sons for a people who weren't doing nearly as much actual fighting for themselves as we were on their behalf. This is precisely what happened in Afghanistan. As far as your assertion that it wasn't self-defense, communism's stated objective, as practiced by actual communist countries, was to take over the entire world and force the adoption of communism by any means necessary. America is not now and never has been a communist country, so yes, we absolutely have the right to stop communists in the interest of our own national defense. We're not obligated to twiddle our thumbs until every hostile nation in the world decides to openly attack us. We've already "been there and done that".
To start: if you divide Mars into multiple countries, each with their own military, that WILL result in war. ... Tom mentioned human nature, this is human nature. ... And look at history: during the American War of Independence, two British corporations, the Hudson's Bay Company and the Northwest Company, engaged in war with eachother.
This is another opinion you hold, clearly not shared by others. America and Russia, the Soviet Union once upon a time, both agreed to cooperate in space exploration, all while both countries had nuclear-tipped ICBMs pointed at each other. We still do, and we still cooperate in space. We declared a truce in space, for the express purpose of furthering our shared human interests, beyond politics / religion / philosophy / ideology.
You think human nature would change if we forced the adoption of one world government? How about some recent history? Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Czechkosolvakia? The USSR? Did any of that prevent state-sponsored mass murder between people living within a single country that wanted nothing to do with each other? Clearly not. Back to the drawing board, bubba.
Jesus H. You even noted that two different corporations, working for the same country, went to war with each other. It must be impossible for you to imagine how different factions working within the same government and military might go to war with each other. There's no history of that within communist countries, is there?
All wars are over money/resources and power. All, period. If someone tells you a certain war is over a principle, they're lying to you.
No, they're not. People go to war and kill each other over the outcome of soccer matches in South America. Pretty much any old reason will do, regardless of how you view it. The soccer wars had fork-all to do with resources. It was pure pride and ego, plain and simple. Thankfully, it didn't last long.
Example: Russia has taken land from Ukraine.
The Russians have an unmatched fear and paranoia about being invaded. They already have more resources than they can ever make use of. Putin doesn't want Ukraine to be part of NATO, because he's terrified of being attacked by the US. Maybe read some of what Putin wrote about Russia and the Soviet Union, rather than making assumptions that don't match any part of what those in power believe and openly stated? He thinks Russians are "special", kinda like Adolf Hitler. Guess what? Most Russians believe the same thing, so it has nothing to do with him, specifically.
Question: What resources did the US ever extract from South Viet Nam?
Answer: Zip.
Grenada? Zero.
Afghanistan? Zilch.
Iraq? We did sell 2 shipments of American weapons to their newly reformed military for oil, because they had nothing else to trade. Subsequent shipments were paid for with Iraqi Dinars. The rest of the oil has consistently gone to China or other countries, through the newly formed Iraqi government.
Ukraine? Nada.
Israel? Nothing.
When I was a child, and when I was early 20s, carrying a concealed weapon was still illegal in the United States. Open carry was also illegal. Arming everyone will result in armed conflict. I don't object to owning a gun to defend your home, but don't carry it in public. Most people will be responsible, but it only takes one to commit murder. And if a conflict happens, such as a white man stealing a purse from a black woman, or an attache case from a black man, and the victim chases the thief to recover his/her property, an untrained bystander could assume the black person is the criminal. This has happened more times than I can relate. That's why untrained/unlicensed civilians cannot be allowed to carry lethal weapons in public. When tasers first came out, I thought this was the ideal solution. If the wrong person is attacked, it can be resolved. But dead is permanent. Unfortunately some brain-dead idiot here in Canada made tasers illegal.
From a website that wants to ban all carrying of weapons in public:
What You Need to Know About Open Carry in America
Is open carry new?
To the contrary: Open carry has been legal in many states since the 19th century.
“Not as a way for civilians to keep the peace,” Robert Spitzer, a political scientist and one of the foremost experts on the history of gun laws, tells The Trace, “but simply to make sure that when people were traveling with guns, they weren’t concealing them, and to allow for the transport of them.”
Your own fellow gun grabbers refute your false assertions about American laws, even as they contort the reasons behind them to support their desires to legislate away the Bill of Rights, in much the same way you do. Open carry was allowed because The Second Amendment to the US Constitution says you have a right to keep and bear arms. The local government outlawed concealed carry in certain areas, so they were forced to allow open carry as a way to comply with the Supreme Court's consistent (for 200+ years and counting) interpretation of what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", actually meant.
An "untrained bystander" could assume anything. No court in America will accept your "I assumed he was a criminal, because he's black, so I shot him", as a valid defense for shooting one of your fellow citizens. Does skin color equate to criminality in Canada? I always thought criminality was based upon clearly criminal behavior that any reasonable person would assume was a criminal act.
A brick is also a lethal weapon. We don't bother to license "concealed brick carriers". I don't cower in fear whenever our local brick layer whips out his "assault brick", even though they could probably kill just about anyone with it if they were determined to do so. Why is the left so infatuated with the idea of disarming their next set of victims of their brain-dead ideology?
How about our neighborhood's butcher? Does he need the government's permission to carry his knives to and from his place of work?
More Americans are killed every year by bricks and baseball bats than the dreaded "assault-style rifle" mentioned in the gun grabber website I quoted above, but there's no mention of that fact anywhere on their website, because it shows how absurd their argument is for banning "rifle cosmetics". They're a lot like you- they see a black rifle and think the same thing you do when you see a black person. A rifle of any description, "assault-style" or otherwise, somehow accounts for fewer murders in America, every single year, than bricks and baseball bats, or knives for that matter. It's almost as if "assault" is a human behavior, rather than a type of weapon.
I'm sure kbd512 wants to recite the NRA argument for weapons.
I'm not a member and haven't read their talking points. If it merely reiterates the importance of the Bill of Rights ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"), what's wrong with making sure all Americans retain their right to self-defense?
I have to point out more people are killed by firearms in the US than any other developed country. And that's per capita. The number of mass murders of children in the US is extreme. There wasn't even one when I was a child.
I have to point out that more than 63 million American babies were murdered by their own mothers before being given a chance to take their first breath of free air. America doesn't give a crap about children and never has. The total number of people murdered by firearms over the past 50 yars is less than 1/60th the number murdered by their own mothers, with the blessing of our government. This goes right back to the morality that our political left doesn't define or practice, because they have none.
I also have to point out that you're about as poor a student of history as any I've ever met, if you think mass murder of children didn't happen in America, without the involvement of firearms, long before you were ever born. Apart from reinforcing your belief system and talking points, you've only succeeded in convincing me that you have no clue what you're talking about. The historical record disagrees with your beliefs, just like our gun grabbers.
I am currently creating an encyclopedia of mass murder in America and have catalogued 504 incidents so far. Common methods used throughout our history include axes, hatchets, blunt objects, knives, hanging, drowning, poison gas, poison, fire, and aircraft (and not just on 9/11). Some of the rarer weapons demonstrate that where there is an evil will, there is a way. Scythes. Blowtorches.
Of course, the axes and hatchets were around because they were needed in an age when people cooked over wood stoves. I can imagine axe-control fanatics in 1890 arguing that “an axe in your home is more likely to be used against you than against an intruder.” And perhaps it would have been true: The “Church of the Sacrifice” slaughtered dozens of families with their own axes in the early 20th century.
Even today, there are a lot of non-firearm mass murders in America: In USA Today’s collection of mass murders for the period 2006 to 2017, nearly a quarter were done without guns. And most of them you have probably not heard about because they do not advance the Left’s cause of disarming the peasants.
I know that history is a very pesky thing when it's counter-factual to your ignorance-based talking points, but there it is.
This has resulted in calls by Democrats to take away weapons, while Republicans want to increase weapons. Neither addresses the real issues.
The real issue is that all humans are capable of extreme violence, just like any other animal. Long before Ritalin ever existed, men, women, and even children were killing each other. Disarming everyone won't change that, but it will create lots of additional victims who don't have the ability to defend themselves. Survival of the fittest- the totalitarian's favorite solution to the "violence problem".
Offline
RobertDyck,
If you recognize that violence is as old as humanity itself, then what in the Sam Hill makes you think this "one world government" idea is going to solve that violence problem, rather than becoming the direct cause of it?
Offline
kbd512,
If you recognize that touching a hot burner/element on the stove results in a burn, what in the Same Hill makes think avoiding a hot element is going to solve anything?
Last edited by RobertDyck (2023-10-22 00:30:31)
Offline
Vikings in Scandinavia did not have any form of police. If someone killed a man in a bar, the killer had to announce what he did in a public square or street. The family of the deceased then decided what fine the killer had to pay. If the killer refused to pay, he was declared to be an outlaw. Again, there were no police, but if anyone stole from an outlaw or even killed him and took everything he has, that was considered a public service.
I'm sure you can see the problem with this. What if a guy is minding his own business, but a drunk in the bar picks a fight. Then the victim is able to defend himself, possibly because the attacker is drunk. And what if the drunk gets killed. Then the family of the drunk doesn't like the fact their family member is dead. This system led to family feuds that made the Hatfields vs McCoys look tame. The cycle of revenge just escalated without end.
Something similar happened in ancient Greece. Men were required to enact revenge on anyone who wronged them. Then they started a court to settle disputes. Myth says the god Apollo established the first court in Greece. Whoever did it, the point is a central authority is necessary. The alternative is revenge upon revenge.
Countries are acting like that. History has shown the strong bullying the weak, and the strong destroy the weak and take the spoils.
Earliest countries started by one city demanding neighboring cities pay them annual tribute. Babylon was a kingdom with multiple cities throughout the Mesopotamian valley, but bulled neighboring cities, demanding they pay tribute. The word "tribute" is really extortion: pay this huge amount or I'll send the army to invade. And they did. At one point Israel was split into two. One Israeli kingdom refused to pay one year. The king of Babylon chose to make an example of them. The entire Babylonian army invaded. A long battle, but Israel lost. Babylon killed every soldier of that Israeli kingdom, as well as every male of fighting age. Looted every home, farm, temple and building. Took all remaining citizens as slaves, force marched them to the capital city of Babyl (aka Babel).
These are all examples of what not to do. Now for positive examples.
In every city in North America, there is a police force. If you mug a stranger and take everything he has, police will arrest you. There is one mayor, one city council, one authority. That's why it works.
The United States is larger than all of Europe. The US has multiple states. The reason these states do not go to war with eachother is the federal government. One government. They don't argue over borders because the federal government ajudicates that. West Virginia separated from Virginia during the Civil War. After the war Virginia wanted it back. The case was heard by a court. The court said you lost the war so no. I don't know if that is a valid reason, but the point is an authority made the decision. In Canada, Quebec wanted Labrador. It was part of Newfoundland for centuries. When Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949, Quebec demanded Labrador. The federal government said no. Certain people in Quebec continued to push the point, so in 2001 the name of the province of Newfoundland was changed to "Newfoundland and Labrador". Again, the federal government made that decision. In Europe before World War 1, disputes like this were resolved by war.
The title of this thread is "Peace Through Strength and Consideration for Others". That's how you prevent war.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2023-10-22 05:51:05)
Offline
For RobertDyck re Post #17
Nice addition to the topic ... thanks!
SearchTerm:Federal government concept for Mars .... details remain to be worked out...
One detail that might deserve some attention is the qualifications of individuals who stand for office in the federal government.
In the United States, as we so often do, we are showing what NOT to do. We allow the citizens of the various communities to elect unqualified persons to represent them, and when the number of such persons is great enough, then the entire enterprise becomes paralyzed.
It may have been that in the past two centuries, persons who were not qualified were elected to Congress, and it may have been that permanent staff helped those individuals to get up to speed. But it seems to me that in recent times, individuals have been elected to Congress to destroy the Nation, and they've come amazingly close.
(th)
Offline
Afghanistan was more complicated. The Arab world treats allies as temporary, to fight a common enemy. But their ally today can be their enemy tomorrow. The US wanted Afghanistan to be as much of a mess for the Soviet Union as Vietnam was for the US. So the US armed Afghan rebels. But the problem was some people in the Pentagon thought that made them vassals to the US. Afghans will not allow any foreign entity rule them. When the Soviets pulled out, the US Pentagon and State Department thought they could dictate. But Afghans consider anyone who tries to rule to be their enemy, so they fought against the US.
Offline
kbd512,
I'll post this separately because it's the main point. You seem to think weapons are the way to solve problems with government. How well did that work in Waco Texas? I know, it was a cult. That doesn't matter, it's just a distraction. The group in Waco did possess weapons but absolutely every weapon was legal under Texas law. They tried to accumulate weapons to defend themselves against government, and the government sent overwhelming force to kill them all. Some FBI members on the scene said they didn't understand why the citizens didn't surrender. The reason is they knew if they did surrender, they wouldn't be arrested, they would be gunned down. And that's exactly what happened. Janet Reno even got a tank from the Army. There's a US law which prohibits any US police from using any weapons of war against any US citizen on US soil. But Janet Reno didn't, she did it anyway. This point was raised in a Congressional hearing, but still no charges were laid against her.
Ruby Ridge: a citizen's melitia was training themselves to fight against the US government. Again all weapons they possessed were perfectly legal. Janet Reno took the same team as Waco, and laid siege. One claim was a pregnant woman was held hostage, but she wasn't. She was part of the group. There's a helicopter picture of her outside the cabin having a smoke. She could have left any time she wanted, and police knew that. Again, slaughter.
This is what happens when you try to just accumulate guns for the purpose of taking up arms against your own country. They didn't even attack anyone, yet they were massacred.
Do you think it's bscale? How well did a large scale revolt work in 1861? I hope you do know what I'm talking about.
Here in Canada, government overreach was extreme during COVID. A group of truckers peacefully protested in Ottawa. Yet the government sent in police. One old woman was trampled by an officer on horseback. The chief of police for Ottawa refused to arrest protesters, so politicians fired him, replaced him with a toadie who didn't care about violating the Constitution. They arrested organizers. Tamara Lich is a political prisoner. Court hearings are still ongoing. Reports from the court hearings are that prosecution is incompetent, and the judge is losing patience for the blatant attempts to violate basic court procedure. The charges are a joke, but consequences are serious. Hopefully the court will throw out all charges.
The Canadian government doesn't understand why they're in trouble. Polls show if an election were held today, they would lose dramatically. An election can be called any time by Parliament voting Non-Confidence. But even if they last the full 2 more years to end of their term, I don't see them getting re-elected. The other party will get a majority.
My point is arms don't solve anything. Splitting government into multiple tiny groups and arming them all is just asking for war.
Offline
tahanson43206,
It may have been that in the past two centuries, persons who were not qualified were elected to Congress, and it may have been that permanent staff helped those individuals to get up to speed. But it seems to me that in recent times, individuals have been elected to Congress to destroy the Nation, and they've come amazingly close.
List some examples of things that some person or group of people in Congress have done that you think are "destroying the nation".
Does "qualified" mean, "agrees with your ideological bent", or something objectively quantifiable?
Objectively Quantifiable Example:
A State Senator must first serve in the House of Congress, as a City Mayor, or as a State Governor.
Is your proposed solution to start telling people who they can vote for?
That would be a dictatorship by any other name, much like the communist party of China. You get to vote for whomever the communist party tells you to vote for, or they shoot you.
I keep posing the same simple question to RobertDyck, and he keeps refusing to answer it, because he already knows the answer, and anyone reading this website who has an open mind and cursory knowledge of recent human history knows what that answer is, because they have so many examples demonstrating exactly what will happen (another war).
Offline
I would like to add, during the Truck protest there were multiple locations. Not just Ottawa, but trucks blocking the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls between the US and Canada was blocked. And truckers in Alberta blocked a highway from the US. Government ordered tow trucks to remove the trucks blocking the highway, but tow companies refused to comply. That's how a protest is done effectively. Unfortunately some truckers brought hunting riffles and ammunition. That caused police to take greater action. Armed Canadian federal police seized the weapons and arrested anyone in possession. Canadian law does permit carrying a hunting riffle in a vehicle with certain precautions, but the government didn't care. No one pulled a gun on police, but they seized weapons and arrested protesters anyway.
The new Premier of Alberta has declare that if the federal government tries to impose laws that infringe on provincial jurisdiction, officials in Alberta will not enforce them. The federal government is acting like this is treason. The Supreme Court just made a decision on one case where the Alberta government challenged a federal law infringing on provincial jurisdiction. The judge chastised politicians, demanding they work cooperatively, but the decision was entirely in favour of the province.
Offline
RobertDyck,
The Waco cult possessed unregistered machine guns that were illegal both under Texas law and under federal law. They also possessed explosive devices that were equally illegal.
The entire Ruby Ridge incident happened because the criminal involved was making and selling illegal unregistered short-barrel firearms, the government found out about it, and instead of arresting him on the spot, they decided to use it as a way to visibly "show their enforcement power".
This is what happens when you try to just accumulate guns for the purpose of taking up arms against your own country. They didn't even attack anyone, yet they were massacred.
The government can't massacre half the people in the country, or it ceases to be a country. If the government could operate that way and get away with it, then explain Iraq and Afghanistan.
You point to a death cult raping children and a lone gunman hacking the barrels off of shotguns and rifles as your bright shiny examples of citizens resisting government tyranny. It means your argument is non-existent.
What's next? Timothy McVeigh was a "freedom fighter"?
He blew up a bunch of kids. That's why he was put to death.
Tamara Lich is a political prisoner. Court hearings are still ongoing. Reports from the court hearings are that prosecution is incompetent, and the judge is losing patience for the blatant attempts to violate basic court procedure. The charges are a joke, but consequences are serious. Hopefully the court will throw out all charges.
If the court convicts her, then what?
Will you write a strongly worded letter to a tyrant?
The Canadian government doesn't understand why they're in trouble. Polls show if an election were held today, they would lose dramatically. An election can be called any time by Parliament voting Non-Confidence. But even if they last the full 2 more years to end of their term, I don't see them getting re-elected. The other party will get a majority.
Yes, your little Hitler doesn't understand why being a dicator is bad. He thinks he can do no wrong. This is typical of dictators.
My point is arms don't solve anything. Splitting government into multiple tiny groups and arming them all is just asking for war.
They solve the problem of not getting immediately massacred by people with arms, because whether you know enough about war to comprehend this or not, war is a numbers game.
If you have 1,000 troops and the other side has 1,000,000, then it doesn't matter how advanced your military technology is, short of nuking the place, you're not winning that battle. This is what happened in Viet Nam and Afghanistan, for example.
Offline
RobertDyck,
How well did a large scale revolt work in 1861? I hope you do know what I'm talking about.
This example deserves special attention.
Thank you for proving my point. The federal government did nothing to prevent the Civil War. My fellow Republican, Abraham Lincoln, used the power of the courts to remove the right of Democrats to own other human beings. Far from preventing a war, this was the direct cause of a war. Democrats are still upset about not being able to own other people, so now they try to use the power of the legislature and courts to push through their racist and fascist ideology anyway. During WWII, another Democrat put all our American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps, but curiously, no American citizens of German ancestry. Now they profess to hate white people instead of black people, but their blatant support of racism hasn't changed, only the targets of their racism. That's why they talk about race all the time. It's what preoccupies their small and drug-addled minds at all times.
I'd also like to point out that the Democrats took the Capitol before they were driven out by the Union Army, and the only reason that happened is that they decided to stop there and throw a party, instead of advancing further, or America would still be a country that practices slavery. Speaking as someone who thinks the practice of slavery is intolerable, I'm overjoyed that Democrats are such terrible military planners, because it doesn't actually interest them.
Offline
The article at the link below is thoughtful and might even be right.
However, the chances of anyone seriously taking this advice are low to vanishing.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-smar … 14594.html
What seems likely is that the patterns described in the article will repeat.
(th)
Offline