h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I agree with the Fronteerism, then. But as far as I'm concerned, the government is just another live body, which has only one reason - to keep itself existing. You can watch the generations pass. And the best way for a biot to survive is to have power, ergo control, and control means lack of freedom.

If you're going to advocate Frontierism you might at least spell the word correctly.

"Conspiritorialist" is wrong as well, in fact, although I notice you managed to get it right in your user name.


Freedomism - basically just Libertarianism under a different name, no?


One question: what does a free society do when it runs out of frontiers to open up? Presumably, then, it has to set about colonising another society's territory, in order to remain free?

What a clever idea that is. I wonder why nobody thought of it before?

Well, I'm very sorry, Lear.
If knowledge IS infinite, then there'll always be another frontier, no? Ditto space.

I'm sorry Fnord, I didn't make clear that I was addressing that last post to Conspiratorialist Primist... who made it clear in their post that they were referring to frontierism regarding territory: no mention was made of pushing back the boundaries of knowledge.

(they wrote: "a free society can only exist as long as it has an open fronteer. THus, it is the government's job to do whatever is needed to open up a new one, either in Antarctica or in space. I prefer the second option.")

Space may or may not be infinite, but the amount of it we can colonise would pretty obviously be limited to the amount that we can get to - ie, hardly any of it.

Why would we want to live there anyway? Most of it is uninhabitable.

Precisely. The mere difficutly of colonising space, as well as the infinite amounts of it, make it all the more an effective a frontier.

"Space may or may not be infinite, but the amount of it we can colonise would pretty obviously be limited to the amount that we can get to - ie, hardly any of it."

Perhaps, but I think that without it (even if it is inaccessable) we are doomed to live under tyranny eventually.

"Why would we want to live there anyway? Most of it is uninhabitable."

Define uninhabitable. Without quite a bit of technology, the American southwest couldn't have sities--most of the poulation of Las Vegas, or even a good bit of the population of Los Angeles would die without a lot of technology to keep the water flowing.

We can live in space, if we try to. Oxygen can be found in much of the solar system, energy can be genrerated without burning hydrocarbons, we can build space stations, and could uild colonies on Luna and Mars, with a little effort. Anywhere is uninhabitable if you don't try to live there. Most places are inhabitable if you try.

"Freedomism - basically just Libertarianism under a different name, no?"

No. Libertarinan believe that government is evil. Freedomists, as I define the word, think that government is good, as long as it surves its purpose correctly.

"But as far as I'm concerned, the government is just another live body, which has only one reason - to keep itself existing. You can watch the generations pass. And the best way for a biot to survive is to have power, ergo control, and control means lack of freedom."

Obviously, governments want to keep existing and gain power. THerefor, there must be means to control it and people willing to control it who understand how to control it. Unchecked, it will become cancerous.

Analiese has said that Libertarians believe land is most important.
That was new to me. ( an article I'd read did suddenly make sense though)
I'm not sure.
Agree or disagree?

It sort of makes sence that they would put an importance on it. I, however, am not sure of its importance, though it has some.

Basicly, I guess they would think that, if you own land, you are like your own government on it (or should be).

People have always known how to subdue government, CP. It comes with the whole government-package. If you live in a controlling system, then you vastly outnumber the government. Democracy relies on the continuing cooperation of the citizens involved, or it simply wouldn't work.
Land is important, A bit. There's a finite amount of land, and an infinite amount of people. If you're against the government, and the government's main asset is the land they own, then you have to become involved in it.
Anyway, the extreme difficulty in colonising space is, like in "Brave New World" by Huxley, great. It is something to waste manpower and resources on on a massive level. It takes continual effort to maintain the present colonies, and even more to colonise new ones.
However, I don't think that space is the answer to tyranny, CT. Sure, you'd have a wider variety of systems, since each colony would have to have a) it's own independent government, and b) a universal wider power, but you need b) to help prevent corruption and war, although unfortunately b) also ensures that independent settlers and those who are against the system stand less of a chance for freedom. Inter-planetary wars would be extremely impractical, eg in the Guide, but stemming from the same cause, transport and communication would be near-impossible, and b) would have to preside over all t&c to ensure quality and so it actually works, and because of the massive cost no one but a government would be able to afford it. It would just increase the tyranny, unless all planets were cut off entirely from eachother.

political leanings:
Active member of the Liberal Democrats, heck I even stand for election

Religious leanings:
Christian, you want further details I know but I'm not giving any.

Philosophical leanings:
I'm pink therefore I'm spam. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.

*Shudder*

Semi-isolation is actually advantageous. It allows new political ideas to be tried out in some places. Also, it gives persecuted groups a chance to isolate themselves and creat new societies.

Since commiunication is cheap, they can share their ideas and a good governmental or social system in onee place can spread, but a bad one will not be albe to force itself everywhere.

abbi: I don't think there is any particular merit to Analiese's observation. Libertarians don't consider land more important than anyone else... and probably the Greens and Democrats find it more important than the Libertarians. They are opposed to government ownership of land, though, because publicly owned land gets abused. A logging company that gets a lease from the Department of Forestry will strip the land bare, destroying the ecosystem, creating soil erosion, and all sorts of other problems. That same company will practice sustainable logging on land they own themselves. People generally take care of things over the long term when there is a long-term investment.

This country's greatest ecological disasters are on publicly owned land.

I believe after due consideration, that I would like to join this illustrious society.

Polotics: I don't like any, its all as flawed as the people who run whatever system...

Religeon: Mostly I find these ammusing, or depressing, a personal belief in a god or devinity I have no problems with and have generaly found I respect people with such beliefs, however I find most organised religions to be a negative influence on far more than they are a positive influence.

Philosophy: I'm not sure I can answer this, while I enjoy philosophical musings I'm not as conversant in the field as I might like, and I find the texts I have so far tried to read annoying, I want to discuss the subject as it almost entirly subjective, I find the writtings annoy as I want to dispute points. For example when Decartes seemingly plucks a good god from almost nothing... I dislike that conclusion from his arguments as I have understood them.

Math

Thanks Blatherskite.
I did not specify but meant private land ownership.

Blathers, just to be contrary, don't you think that publicly owned land can be protected adequately by government? Here in the frozen north we have vast tracts of land which are unlogable because they are made that way by the government. Not to mention that some private land has been designated as agricultural land reserve so that it is not rich growing soil covered by cement.

The government can protect land only as long as they don't lease it out to corporations. Unfortunately, the Dept of Forestry doesn't have a budget. If they didn't grant logging rights somewhere else, they wouldn't be able to maintain Yellowstone.

Strip mining only occurs on publicly owned land.

abbi: "I did not specify but meant private land ownership." - In that case, allow me to retract my previous statement about Analiese's observation. It was dead on.