Moon Laws

People like to feel secure in their homes, and take care of their
families and friends and have a positive outlook toward their future.
Any system that could provide this reliably, consistently, and easily
for people, would win adherents. The failure of the statist fantasies
such as Cambodia which is a human tragedy of the first order, and the
hard scrabble life offered by entry level market economies in the
former Soviet Republics have taken the winds out of the sails of those
who merely promise a better tomorrow based on some theory.

So what would some new post-national government look like?

Well, first thing is that governments and markets do not work
rationally. They cannot achieve what people expect them to achieve.

The second thing is that today, people are the source of wealth - even
subsitence wealth.

So, this suggests that an automated system delivered over the internet
that offered the basics described above - using automated systems,
operating off world - might become a defacto way of life for a large
number of people in the world today.

That is, imagine that wireless broadband is available across the Earth
as already described.

Then imagine that through this broadband a plethora of financial
services are rendered. Also, over time there develops a significant
telepresence telerobot capacity that provides employment for many.

Then imagine that a powersat network delivers power to wherever its
needed on Earth.

With just these three items based in space, global telecom, global
workforce, global power, the owners of these assets would be in a
position to assert individual liberties amont their workforce.

Now add to this an automated package delivery system consisting of a
network of VTOL aircraft powered from space - delivering pacakges
cheaply and efficiently in hours anywhere on Earth from any other
point on Earth.

Now add to this an automated personal transport system of similar
vehicles.

Now add to this floating cities that are organized as commercial and
residential centers.

Telerobotics means a person can live anywhere and work anywhere.
Banking services would be rendered from a tax-haven state and
delivered electronically through secure transmissions. So, that folks
are paid in a way that avoids the tax man and other snooping.
Packages containing whatever products are purchased from anyone to
anyone else anywhere on Earth. Travel from any point to any other
point is possible. The ability to take up residence in a government
free haven - would give anyone the ability to leave government
controls behind.

In this environment, governments would be severely weakened, and a
defacto alternative governemnt could arise based on these services -
consistently and reliably delivered.

One could proceed as the Barons did against Charles the first, back in
1215 - where they recognized the King, but demanded certain rights.
Same here.

Now to avoid being a haven for terrorists and criminals - such a
system would have a variety of anti-terror and anti-crime features -
just because its good business long term. Any system that failed in
that regard wouldn't have a chance of surviving and challenging
national rights.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 10, 9:12 pm, John Schilling wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:42:24 -0600, Howard Brazee
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:14:19 -0700, John Schilling
wrote:
If they're *not* being cooperative, dual citizenship can be an enormous
hassle. For example, and not hypothetical, you can be required to
spend
the years between age 18 and 20 serving in the armies of two different
nations. Pick one, and for the rest of your life risk prison if you
ever set foot in a country that has an extradition treaty with the
other.
Do you have any case examples of this?

A couple from personal experience, involving US/Polish dual citizenship
back in the Cold War. Fortunately, both have been able to revisit their
homeland since '91, but were limited in their overseas travel (not just
to Poland, but to some third-party nations as well) before that.

The only things that come up on a quick google involve hypothetical
conflicts between US selective-service laws and foreign conscription.
Possibly a foreign-language search would be more revealing; is there
anyplace left in the Anglosphere with military conscription?

--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

I did not know the US recognized dual citizenship. Please tell me
more


Children (of US citizens) born while their parents are resident in other
countries often have citizenship of both countries.

A US citizen can take out citizenship of another country without losing US
citizenship. This is a presumption of US diplomatic practice. They can
lose citizenship only by specifically declaring such to be their intent.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

William Mook wrote:

Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there
trying to make life difficult for you, do you?

To answer your question though, the thesis is that the US takes
the threat posed by usenet seriously enough to warrant its
monitoring and shaping usenet discussion.

The same way King George monitored and shaped the fellows who
inhabited Speaker's Corner back in the day when the public
turned against him, or the way the French Postal Service
monitored international mails in its famous 'black room' without
the French people's knowledge.

All these efforts proceed, not by outright obvious ban, but by
what Nixon might call 'dirty tricks' not directly attributable
to the agency carrying it out.

So they would be any agency charged with the duty to control the
range of discourse on usenet - if such exists.

What evidence do you have that you specifically are being subjected
to "dirty tricks" by the US government (or any other government for
that matter)?

Why do you find the possibility that Brad Guth is some sort of
government disinformation agent so much more likely than the
possibility that Guth is a very disturbed individual?

Jim Davis

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:56:49 +0200 (CEST), in a place far, far away,
Jim Davis made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

To answer your question though, the thesis is that the US takes
the threat posed by usenet seriously enough to warrant its
monitoring and shaping usenet discussion.

The same way King George monitored and shaped the fellows who
inhabited Speaker's Corner back in the day when the public
turned against him, or the way the French Postal Service
monitored international mails in its famous 'black room' without
the French people's knowledge.

All these efforts proceed, not by outright obvious ban, but by
what Nixon might call 'dirty tricks' not directly attributable
to the agency carrying it out.

So they would be any agency charged with the duty to control the
range of discourse on usenet - if such exists.

What evidence do you have that you specifically are being subjected
to "dirty tricks" by the US government (or any other government for
that matter)?

Why do you find the possibility that Brad Guth is some sort of
government disinformation agent so much more likely than the
possibility that Guth is a very disturbed individual?

Just a wild guess, here, but maybe Mr. Mook is almost as disturbed, in
his own way, as Brad Guth?

Jim Davis wrote:
William Mook wrote:

Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there
trying to make life difficult for you, do you?

To answer your question though, the thesis is that the US takes
the threat posed by usenet seriously enough to warrant its
monitoring and shaping usenet discussion.

The same way King George monitored and shaped the fellows who
inhabited Speaker's Corner back in the day when the public
turned against him, or the way the French Postal Service
monitored international mails in its famous 'black room' without
the French people's knowledge.

All these efforts proceed, not by outright obvious ban, but by
what Nixon might call 'dirty tricks' not directly attributable
to the agency carrying it out.

So they would be any agency charged with the duty to control the
range of discourse on usenet - if such exists.

What evidence do you have that you specifically are being subjected
to "dirty tricks" by the US government (or any other government for
that matter)?

Man are you out of it. If it ain't the Americans, it's John Howard and
his band of Australian thugs : The Lavoisier Group. All you have to do
is mosey on over to sci.environment and alt.global-warming to see it.

Why do you find the possibility that Brad Guth is some sort of
government disinformation agent so much more likely than the
possibility that Guth is a very disturbed individual?

One doesn't need to be disturbed to post on the usenet, some may
actually find it perversely therapeutic. Clearly the fossil fuel
industry and big money interests are spamming usenet newsgroups.

It's very cheap and easy to do. I'm surprised smaller businesses and
governments aren't getting into it yet. Still, lots of idiots watch TV.

skreiv:

an automated system delivered over the internet that offered the
basics described above - using automated systems, operating off world

imagine that wireless broadband is available across the Earth
as already described.

imagine that through this broadband a plethora of financial services
are rendered.

Also, over time there develops a significant telepresence telerobot
capacity that provides employment for many.

imagine that a powersat network delivers power to wherever its needed
on Earth.

add to this an automated package delivery system consisting of a
network of VTOL aircraft powered from space

add to this an automated personal transport system of similar
vehicles.

add to this floating cities that are organized as commercial and
residential centers.


And a pony ! Gotta have ponies ! Powered from space !




Eivind Kjørstad

On Oct 15, 7:17 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:56:49 +0200 (CEST), in a place far, far away,
Jim Davis made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





To answer your question though, the thesis is that the US takes
the threat posed by usenet seriously enough to warrant its
monitoring and shaping usenet discussion.

The same way King George monitored and shaped the fellows who
inhabited Speaker's Corner back in the day when the public
turned against him, or the way the French Postal Service
monitored international mails in its famous 'black room' without
the French people's knowledge.

All these efforts proceed, not by outright obvious ban, but by
what Nixon might call 'dirty tricks' not directly attributable
to the agency carrying it out.

So they would be any agency charged with the duty to control the
range of discourse on usenet - if such exists.

What evidence do you have that you specifically are being subjected
to "dirty tricks" by the US government (or any other government for
that matter)?

Why do you find the possibility that Brad Guth is some sort of
government disinformation agent so much more likely than the
possibility that Guth is a very disturbed individual?

Just a wild guess, here, but maybe Mr. Mook is almost as disturbed, in
his own way, as Brad Guth?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wow, you got me Rand! You *are* good! haha.. You freakin' idiot.

On Oct 14, 9:23 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:28 pm, wrote:

On Oct 14, 5:16 pm, Jim Davis wrote:

William Mook wrote:
I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they
call out the voice of unreason.

William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"?

Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying
to make life difficult for you, do you?

I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-)

Well, if this line of reasoning causes Brad to temper his responses
does it matter?

Now that's a weird contribution, Rabbi Mook. What part of MI5/NSA did
you say you worked for?
- Brad Guth -

Is it just me being Californicated watching all the specialty license
plates in Malibu, but does MI5/NSA when you squint at it look like
MENSA? Is Brad trying to tell us something? Is he sending a coded
message? Discuss among yourselves. Cause we're not going to get
much done talking about moon laws.. haha..

I recall reading a sci-fi book many years ago about a colony on Mars,
and one of the heroes of the story, he was on some sort of race around
the solar system, got into trouble a legal wrangle on Mars - and the
author described the difference between the rational Mars laws at that
time and the perverted and irrational and counter-productive laws of
Old Earth - and I had a real glimmer of hope. I forget the name of
the story or the author, but I think at root those who want to make a
better future in their heart of hearts know things are pretty ****ed
up where they live.

One of the biggest ****-ups around is that voting systems, and to a
certain extent, even market based systems, suffer from Ken Arrow's
impossibility theorem. Now, when I mention this online a variety of
so-called experts come out and say well it ain't so bad and if ya
thinks its bad well you don't knows nuffin. and other similar
things. But I first heard about this in Scientific American's
Mathematical Games about 30 years ago and dug up the bibilography and
references given in the column at that time, and read a little about
it. From what I recall, its pretty damned problematical. Like the
Royal Rights of Kings which vouchsafes the public safety by a reliance
on God to make sure only Kings of true heart ascend to the thrown ...
hahah.. a notion we find ludicrous today - our notion of a fair open
honest rational government creating and idealized response to people's
truest wishes is equally bone headed. And it stems from a simple
mathematical result that has far reaching consequences. Namely, when
we vote, or buy and sell things for that matter, we use numbers to
measure some aspect of human desire. The number of votes to guage
something we in today's world call popularity. The number of dollars
spent on an object something we in today's world call price. Noiw I
won't go into Louis Mumford's analysis of the modern mind which has
reduced all things - wrongly in his view - to numbers. That's quite a
different sort of objection. Arrow's objection is more basic. And its
this. Numbers can be put into a specific ordering. 4 is bigger than
3 and 3 bigger than 2 - FEELINGS CANNOT. Feelings cannot be uniquely
ordered. That is I can like Carol better than Betty and Betty Better
than Alice. But it frequently happens I can like Alice better than
Carol. This happens for individuals. This happens for populations.
This happens whenever you try to use numbers to put into releative
order human desires. And this inability to put into a unique order
the way even an individual values things, creates huge problems.
They're huge in the sense that they're not minor. Its the hanging
chad that impact every single vote cast and dollar spent and reduces
our hopes for a wonderful and peaceful world - to ashes.

So, for those of you out there who hope to build a better world on
Mars, know you're not going to do it with a better voting or market
based system any more than Americans built a better society by making
George Washington a King. And just like it was hard for early
Americans to catch on to the notion they might not need a King - you
young kids out there who will actually build the first Mars
government, will have to catch on to the notion that markets an voting
don't work any more than the royal rights of kings. During America's
revolutionary war there were royalists and revolutionaries. The
royalists couldn't imagine life without a British Crown. But what is
not appreciated today, the revolutionaries couldn't imagine life
without an American Crown - and when Washington refused to become King
after his decisive defeat of the British - a new idea was released in
the world. It inspired the French Revolution and forged a strong
alliance between France (who just a few years earlier had been
fighting Americans along the Mississippi River - haha) But think
about it. MOST Americans in Revolutionary times couldn't get their
heads around the fact that they could get along perfectly well without
a king. You folks who will be building Mars society have to get your
head around the notion that you can get along perfectly well without
voting and markets.

I have humbly proposed possible solutions to Arrow's paradox. One I
call vector money and I wrote about it back in the 90s - but nothing
much survives online. There's a half life of human memory it seems.
I think that has potential. But lets of work must be done to perfect
something well before its needed.

The frontier has always informed and illuminated the center. This has
been true from the beginning of humanity. Without a frontier the
center withers and dies and hardens against the losses. With the
frontier there is a flow of information and culture and change that is
creative and refreshing - the result of life and growth.

One of the fundamental contributions of the settlement of Mars will
its contribution to th ecenter to Old Earth a better way to organize
its affairs along rational lines. One thing is for certain, it will
not be the same old thing again done more cleanly on Mars - but it
will be the birth of a whole new thing.

On Oct 16, 10:18 pm, wrote:

Wow, you got me Rand! You *are* good! haha.. You freakin' idiot.

Still think I'm wrong about these Usenet spooks, moles and semitic
brown-nosed rusemasters, as doing their usual anti-think-tank best at
snookering the likes of yourself?

I'll talk "moon laws" as based upon whomever establishes the first
habitat platform that's station-keeping within the moon's L1, as based
upon Mook's nifty SBLs having exactly what it takes for enforcing
those laws.
- Brad Guth -

On Oct 18, 10:04 am, BradGuth wrote:


Still think I'm wrong about these Usenet spooks, moles and semitic
brown-nosed rusemasters, as doing their usual anti-think-tank best at
snookering the likes of yourself?

Facts confuse them. They are at best clones of a lesser God.

I'll talk "moon laws" as based upon whomever establishes the first
habitat platform that's station-keeping within the moon's L1, as based
upon Mook's nifty SBLs having exactly what it takes for enforcing
those laws.

That is, if you are able to convince at least 10 high-ranking Federal
Reserve clones that it's worth a ruse worth paying for.

- Brad Guth -

R. Linsey

Based on your unwavering reaction to the PC attitude of our
time, try out a complimentary membership to the distinguished
SIG service award site, http://www.stc.org

On Oct 18, 6:59 am, wrote:
On Oct 14, 9:23 pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Oct 14, 4:28 pm, wrote:

On Oct 14, 5:16 pm, Jim Davis wrote:

William Mook wrote:
I suppose when the voice of reason can't prove me wrong, they
call out the voice of unreason.

William, would you care to identify by whom you mean by "they"?

Surely you don't think there's a mysterious "they" out there trying
to make life difficult for you, do you?

I mean, that's always been *Brad's* complaint. :-)

Well, if this line of reasoning causes Brad to temper his responses
does it matter?

Now that's a weird contribution, Rabbi Mook. What part of MI5/NSA did
you say you worked for?
- Brad Guth -

Is it just me being Californicated watching all the specialty license
plates in Malibu, but does MI5/NSA when you squint at it look like
MENSA? Is Brad trying to tell us something? Is he sending a coded
message? Discuss among yourselves. Cause we're not going to get
much done talking about moon laws.. haha..

I recall reading a sci-fi book many years ago about a colony on Mars,
and one of the heroes of the story, he was on some sort of race around
the solar system, got into trouble a legal wrangle on Mars - and the
author described the difference between the rational Mars laws at that
time and the perverted and irrational and counter-productive laws of
Old Earth - and I had a real glimmer of hope. I forget the name of
the story or the author, but I think at root those who want to make a
better future in their heart of hearts know things are pretty ****ed
up where they live.

One of the biggest ****-ups around is that voting systems, and to a
certain extent, even market based systems, suffer from Ken Arrow's
impossibility theorem. Now, when I mention this online a variety of
so-called experts come out and say well it ain't so bad and if ya
thinks its bad well you don't knows nuffin. and other similar
things. But I first heard about this in Scientific American's
Mathematical Games about 30 years ago and dug up the bibilography and
references given in the column at that time, and read a little about
it. From what I recall, its pretty damned problematical. Like the
Royal Rights of Kings which vouchsafes the public safety by a reliance
on God to make sure only Kings of true heart ascend to the thrown ...
hahah.. a notion we find ludicrous today - our notion of a fair open
honest rational government creating and idealized response to people's
truest wishes is equally bone headed. And it stems from a simple
mathematical result that has far reaching consequences. Namely, when
we vote, or buy and sell things for that matter, we use numbers to
measure some aspect of human desire. The number of votes to guage
something we in today's world call popularity. The number of dollars
spent on an object something we in today's world call price. Noiw I
won't go into Louis Mumford's analysis of the modern mind which has
reduced all things - wrongly in his view - to numbers. That's quite a
different sort of objection. Arrow's objection is more basic. And its
this. Numbers can be put into a specific ordering. 4 is bigger than
3 and 3 bigger than 2 - FEELINGS CANNOT. Feelings cannot be uniquely
ordered. That is I can like Carol better than Betty and Betty Better
than Alice. But it frequently happens I can like Alice better than
Carol. This happens for individuals. This happens for populations.
This happens whenever you try to use numbers to put into releative
order human desires. And this inability to put into a unique order
the way even an individual values things, creates huge problems.
They're huge in the sense that they're not minor. Its the hanging
chad that impact every single vote cast and dollar spent and reduces
our hopes for a wonderful and peaceful world - to ashes.

So, for those of you out there who hope to build a better world on
Mars, know you're not going to do it with a better voting or market
based system any more than Americans built a better society by making
George Washington a King. And just like it was hard for early
Americans to catch on to the notion they might not need a King - you
young kids out there who will actually build the first Mars
government, will have to catch on to the notion that markets an voting
don't work any more than the royal rights of kings. During America's
revolutionary war there were royalists and revolutionaries. The
royalists couldn't imagine life without a British Crown. But what is
not appreciated today, the revolutionaries couldn't imagine life
without an American Crown - and when Washington refused to become King
after his decisive defeat of the British - a new idea was released in
the world. It inspired the French Revolution and forged a strong
alliance between France (who just a few years earlier had been
fighting Americans along the Mississippi River - haha) But think
about it. MOST Americans in Revolutionary times couldn't get their
heads around the fact that they could get along perfectly well without
a king. You folks who will be building Mars society have to get your
head around the notion that you can get along perfectly well without
voting and markets.

I have humbly proposed possible solutions to Arrow's paradox. One I
call vector money and I wrote about it back in the 90s - but nothing
much survives online. There's a half life of human memory it seems.
I think that has potential. But lets of work must be done to perfect
something well before its needed.

The frontier has always informed and illuminated the center. This has
been true from the beginning of humanity. Without a frontier the
center withers and dies and hardens against the losses. With the
frontier there is a flow of information and culture and change that is
creative and refreshing - the result of life and growth.

One of the fundamental contributions of the settlement of Mars will
its contribution to th ecenter to Old Earth a better way to organize
its affairs along rational lines. One thing is for certain, it will
not be the same old thing again done more cleanly on Mars - but it
will be the birth of a whole new thing.


A collorary of what you're defining here is what a number
of votes actually represents: it represents the agreement
that the voter has made with the heart, mind, and soul of
the elected official. NOW (it) is an almost *total*
dependence on the federal bureaucracy (in charge of a
fiat money system) that creates an environment of stagnation
rather than responsible and dependable growth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8

As such, promise markets remain at a standstill, while
it's "buyer beware" in the race to pay off whatever
controlling PACS end up enforcing their own agendas -
the war in Iraq being one of those, and very likely an
upcoming war in Iran, with the election of Guliani:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHfel...&feature=bz301

Are these people the enemy of private enterprise? If we
assume that they are not, then why has free energy been
suppressed all these years, huh?????? It is because of the
need of those who control the purse strings of prospective
entrepreneural markets that meters, gauges, as well as
spending limits are in place to "protect the consumer".
Yet IMO these consumers represent the "dumbed down"
faction of *robot economies* that march in blind lockstep
to the dictates of the federal government, VIA the
FIAT MONEY SYSTEM.

With a new gold standard that is based on the supply of
minted coin that increases in proportion to the square mile
of habitable infrastructure, do you think that the minted
coin would remain in the hands of the Federal Reserve?
The answer is that the minted coin would find its way back
to the providers of habitable infrastructure, and that
those providers would now be in a position to become lenders
themselves to the Federal Government. The "borrowers", on
the other hand, would become indebted to the lenders, and
would have to be like subjects, or soldiers, in order to
protect the interests of the lenders.

But weren't the "lenders" supposed to be the creators of
the infrastructure that lent itself to building a comfort-
able transportation and housing development for the purpose
of ENABLING those same inhabitors to expand the environment
for receiving newer promise markets unto its own? Why the
incredible "dumbing down" with thin sliced incrementalism?
Is that not an invasion of privacy, or is there an instinctive
tendency to lose one's social identity when grouped in
populated areas?

My contention is that whatever instinctive tendencies there
are to become more like everybody else, that in doing so, a
larger potential for socially ordered -transcendence- from
poverty to wealth will leave its imprint in the dialect
between a *growing* number of members in the group.

Feelings cannot be uniquely ordered

No, not "uniquely", but in the overall "potential" yes they
can. Bush wants us to "stay the course" - Doesn't this also
require that, since we don't agree with the antiquated,
metered, and gauged energy market, that we should at least
"feel" the need for our involvement in Iraq? (Media
spinmeisters can then "mold" your feelings any way the Fed
desires to "spend" them, and today, "feelings" have become
such an unlimited resource, that if you're not "politically
correct" you might as well hang up feeling anything at all!)

Yet our "feelings" are what supposedly "crosses over" into
the groupthink in order to become a kind of validation to
our individual actions: While we were expecting to recieve
an answer for some mathematical problem, we were simply told
"not at this time", probably because there was some deeper
knowlege, or "intuition" that we had to wait for, in order
to first get "all of our ducks lined up in a single row".

Inevitably we become as darkness to the rest of our group
unless we can just give others theirs, as well as our own
"heads up" as to what we're dealing with. Right now, I think
its about preserving our own species, but not at the expense
of losing whatever credibility we have with those that believe
in the same things that we do. To do that, we must insure that
any elected leader is knowlegable on not only an alternative,
but replacement to oil that would not bind us to the servitude
that we presently have with the military industrial complex.


R. Linsey

Based on your unwavering reaction to the PC attitude of our
time, try out a complimentary membership to the distinguished
SIG service award site, http://www.stc.org