I just did a radio interview with Thom Hartmann, in which he postulated that if the proposed homesteading legislation passed, it would result in an Iranian billionaire setting up a military base on the moon from which to bombard us. Or alternately, that I would become a dictator of my own lunar colony. He also didn’t seem to understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.
Hokay…
What? There’s a difference?
Good to see your making all the in depth interviews.
I’ll try to catch it at one of the times and stations listed here.
So. The Moon is a Farsi Master?
Looks like there is some missionary work to be done taking the idea to the general public 🙂
The segment should be up in a few minutes at KOTA.
Well, that did not go very well. Rand, you should’ve practiced by pitching your argument to a junior high special ed class first. That would’ve better prepared you for a series of breathtakingly stupid questions and wild tangents.
Listening to other parts of his show, I think you should’ve framed the issue as the right for a gay married couple to own a house on the moon, fully equal the right straight couples enjoy today in places like New Hampshire.
George,
Yes, like many radio hosts he was more interested in pushing his agenda than your idea.
BTW, along those lines, have you contacted David Livingston? Your proposal would make a good edition of The Space Show.
Do we listen to the same Space Show? It doesn’t look like it.
No, I haven’t contact anyone, but upon reflection, framing the argument as being for the right of gay couples to own property in space would get at least 50% of the public on board with privatization, just through knee jerk reactions. Toss in the elderly and disabled and politicians would be afraid to vote against it.
It would surely garner higher support than the proposal to turn the moon into an Islamic theocracy run by a dictatorial Iranian billionaire who imports African slaves for use by the Royal Lunar Mining Megacorporation to build nuclear missiles aimed at gay people and kittens, which was pretty much the spin from the special ed class.
I can’t see how enough colonists can get to mars in the initial years for my settlement plan to work (which means no bank would take the financial risk) so I’ve come up with a hybrid plan.
I don’t care who’s plan they / we / you use. So long as the optimal colonist is an overweight, technically inclined, self-educated, damn excellent cook, fun to be around, generally all around good guy.
(yes, I do have such a ‘guy’ in mind)
Yer just the guy!
Ken,
Your website doesn’t seem to allow posts without a profile so I am posting my comment here on your hybrid plan.
Ken,
The issue Trent mentions in regards to Australia was also an issue with Jamestown. Folks spent too much time on their own claims and looking for gold, not enough on producing food and building the infrastructure needed for survival.
However might I also suggest looking at the Pilgrim model? The Mayflower was really only the tip of the iceberg. The funding and support came from the various separatist church congregations working together and cutting a deal with investors. Once the Mayflower group gained a foothold more groups followed. The Mayflower Compact might also make a good model for the charter of your settlement.
Basically following the Pilgrim Model you would establish a similar group of like minded individuals here on Earth. The mission of the first settlers would be to establish a foothold and in the process stake out the claims for those who would follow and who were financing the first group. This would allow much more of a bootstrap approach and the potential to create the critical mass of settlers sooner.
Tom Matula
Every idea I look at has a labor shortage. The original plan had the advantage that every person that set boot on a planet started with a habitat and three times the life support they needed and they had the resources to pay back the loan except that the rate of new colonists needed could not be met.
My latest hybrid plan has the disadvantage that is depresses the value of real estate but at least the colonists do not have a crushing debt.
One model that isn’t politically correct but just might work is bond servants. In this case they get free transport but must serve a labor term for the transport company before they are released from service and get a claim. I don’t see that happening.
Ken,
That is why the Moon and not Mars will be the first step, because the labor shortage will be easy to solve on the Moon via telebotic systems. Then, once the technology is matured enough to use AI you go on to Mars.
No Thomas. While you are correct about the moon being an easier place to deal with the labor shortage. The big issue is freedom. There just isn’t going to be that much on the moon. Look at how all the space startups have to deal with regulations in this country. A frontier is mostly about getting away from the regulators. Still, the moon will give some opportunity for that. Mars gives us a chance for something quite a bit more.
I…what…he…
I got about halfway through that before I had to stop. The stupid burned, it burned so much…
“So you’re in favor of kingdoms?” WHAT IS WRONG WITH – GAH!
Ken,
When coming to the new world it was the same as the old world, toss a few seeds in the ground and shoot a deer and spend spare time prospecting.
It would actually be the opposite on mars. I suggest you study the California gold rush. The most money was made supplying the miners, not actually digging for gold. And with having a hard time shipping gold for a lack of a fast tranportation system, they simply put the gold in a box and hung a sign that said BANK. You should have no trouble with electronic banking from mars.
Food, water, breathable air will be the gold on mars and the real money makers.
I promote mars as a means of getting out of slavery, not a new way in.
Energy is the key item. We have the chance of having really cheap energy [Thorium, right Karl?] on mars because they aren’t under the thumb of some govt. and use of radiation in a high radiation environment is a no brainer even for an envirowacko.
With enough energy, things will be cheaper on mars than even on earth.
People think, “martians will be slaves to the air merchants.” No, they won’t. Are we slaves to the water merchants here on earth? [only if we are CA farmers.]
It’s not about exporting goods to earth [although they will, remember IP?] It’s about throwing off the chains of slavery we’ve become so used to we don’t even recognize them anymore.