GIThruster wrote:As to william's bank, it was pointed out to him months ago that his scheme holds no advantage over a ship at sea, so why would anyone throw money into it? Quite simply, banking cannot be used to justify building on the Moon.
Seasteading Cities on the ocean
Seasteading: Libertarians dream of creating self-ruling floating cities. But can the many obstacles, not least the engineering ones, be overcome?
Thx, from your link:The long arm of the law
The technical challenges are daunting enough. The legal questions that seasteads would face are no less tricky, and call into question whether it would really be possible to create genuinely self-governing mini-states on the oceans. Until seasteaders are ready to cut their ties with the land altogether, they will want to build their colonies not much more than 12 nautical miles (22km) offshore—the limit of countries’ territorial waters—otherwise travelling to and from the seastead will take too long. But the laws of the sea give countries powers to enforce some criminal laws up to 24 nautical miles out and to regulate some economic activities in a 200-mile “exclusive economic zone”. Ships are granted exemptions, but a seastead tethered to the seabed would not qualify.
Some countries (notably America) assert the right to extend their jurisdictions, in matters affecting their citizens, across the entire planet. And like any other seagoing structure, a seastead would be obliged to register with a “flag state”, to whose maritime laws it would be subject. Some flag states are lax about enforcement but if, say, America disapproved of the goings-on aboard a seastead, it could lean on such states to get tough—and offer enforcement on their behalf. In the 1960s Britain’s government shut down pirate-radio ships not by sending the navy to attack them but by banning British suppliers and advertisers from doing business with them. In all, the leaders of the seasteading movement concede that they will have to avoid getting into anything too provocative—drugs, pornography or money-laundering, for example. As for taxes, America already demands that its citizens pay income tax even when they are living abroad—and that would include living on a seastead. There is nothing to stop other countries following suit and indeed getting extraterritorial about other taxes too. Until seasteaders are able to bank their money with independent, ocean-going financial institutions, they may not be able to escape the taxman’s clutches. Exactly to my point about a Mars Colony..it would be tough for any country to enforce its laws about taxes or anything else when it takes months to get there. Unlike seasteads all bets would be on in the case of mars. Love to see the IRS collect Taxes from people living on Mars(US citizens or not) or investors on earth with secret accounts in the bank of Mars.
williatw wrote:Unlike seasteads all bets would be on in the case of mars. Love to see the IRS collect Taxes from people living on Mars(US citizens or not) or investors on earth with secret accounts in the bank of Mars.[/b]
You underestimate the ability of the IRS to extend itself. Last I heard, online poker is still legal in the US, but it is impractical because US law now forbids banking in support of such. USG has done this because it wants a portion of the proceeds and there is still no legal basis for taxing online gambling. So until the law is passed regulating (taxing) online gambling, it is illegal for banks to have anything to do with gambling accounts. There are still some. I know a woman who has earned her living playing poker online for many years, but her international accounts were in place before the new laws. So far as I know, there are no legal ways to start new gambling accounts.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Blankbeard wrote:It's certainly possible. For my personal tastes, I think you're getting dangerously close to saying that you're looking to be a criminal enterprise specializing in tax evasion YMMV. I mean, you're going to want to mine asteroids to get nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur compounds needed for living anyway. You're going to end up with tons of gold, silver, thorium, uranium, platinum, iridium, and all of the other valuable metals. Some of it will go to industry but most of the rest is just going to accumulate. What are you going to do with it? I'd be willing to bet the existing financial system would prefer you not send tons of precious metals into circulation.
You will probably like this: WE ARE ONE Starring Rosie Jones
That's interesting. I notice Baby Daddy isn't Lord of Mars. Isn't he one of the other astronauts? Maybe he's still on Earth.
One thing that bugs me is that while we know that microgravity is very harmful to life over any period of time, I've never seen an attempt to answer the question of how little gravity can we tolerate on a lasting basis. Is Mars sufficient or the Moon? There appears to be some evidence the coriolis effect is easy to adapt to.
You are not looking in the right places. There have been a number of studies, some ongoing into the effects of micro-gravity on people.
Did you try to google it?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
I've always imagined a long term mission like that would carry sleeping quarters that would be spun for gravity. You'd spend your sleep cycle under a full G of simulated gravity and perhaps a couple of waking hours doing light exercise and some paperwork type stuff. Then you'd spin down as the other shift spins up, and you'd float for the rest of the day.
ladajo wrote:You are not looking in the right places. There have been a number of studies, some ongoing into the effects of micro-gravity on people.
Did you try to google it?
Yes, the question isn't about the effects of microgravity. It's about the level of gravity needed for long term health. If you know of an answer, let me know.
Blankbeard wrote:That's interesting. I notice Baby Daddy isn't Lord of Mars. Isn't he one of the other astronauts? Maybe he's still on Earth.
One thing that bugs me is that while we know that microgravity is very harmful to life over any period of time, I've never seen an attempt to answer the question of how little gravity can we tolerate on a lasting basis. Is Mars sufficient or the Moon? There appears to be some evidence the coriolis effect is easy to adapt to.
Think babydaddy was back on earth and the astronauts were sterlized to prevent this from happening. She was impregnated back on earth, but gave birth on Mars.
kunkmiester wrote:Not quite to nuclear and antimatter yet. I actually posted a short powerpoint I put on youtube a few months ago, but it was extremely crude. I'm trying to refine the numbers--probably make them a good bit bigger--so I have a better grasp on the mass budget, which is the main driver of cost right now. viewtopic.php?t=3580&highlight=
Big problem is remembering how to do the math--I want to juggle all aspects of the equations, and the rocket equation for example has a natural log in it, which I don't remember how to reverse so I can make the mass fractions outputs instead of inputs, and in a spreadsheet no less.
Withdrawing from the Outer Space Treaty and claiming the moon as sovereign American territory would allow the United States to sell land parcels and mineral rights on Earth’s nearest neighbor. The moon is filled with natural resources, including platinum, water (useful for creating rocket fuel and for sustaining space settlers) and helium 3, a substance that does not exist in nature on Earth that could be used to fuel limitless and clean fusion energy. The proceeds of selling pieces of the moon could be used to retire part of the national debt. The United States will need to defend its claim of and private property on the moon by establishing a base on there as well as by engaging in diplomacy with other nations to secure agreement that the United States should be the steward of the moon.
Needless to say I am strongly opposed it would trash my idea. Fortunately our current president doesn’t give a coyote's arse about space, and if he did would doubtlessly favor some sort of UN stewardship that "common heritage of mankind" rot. And of course Russia and China would never agree to recognize any claim of sovereignty/ownership on our part anyway. Which as far as I am concerned is a good thing, let earth ownership claims and laws/taxes/regs stay on earth.
I think most students of space law are agreed that the commercial concerns need to come before the laws that will place mandates and taxes on them. Space law will certainly change. It is only a political statement at present. When people start earning money is when you'll see the lawmakers get involved. Fat chance we'll withdraw from a treaty without a real reason. Withdrawing from any treaty costs the president a significant amount of political capital and no president is going to so spend such a commodity without a pressing concern.
If a colony were to develop on the Moon with primarily private funds, it is conceivable that it could declare itself a sovereign state. If on the other hand it is built with federal funds, the best it could hope for is statehood.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
YMMV. I mean, you're going to want to mine asteroids to get nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur compounds needed for living anyway. You're going to end up with tons of gold, silver, thorium, uranium, platinum, iridium, and all of the other valuable metals. Some of it will go to industry but most of the rest is just going to accumulate. What are you going to do with it? I'd be willing to bet the existing financial system would prefer you not send tons of precious metals into circulation.