Discussing Mars

First, I agree that with the ecological, financial and political disasters we have right here, right now, spending more then a trivial amount of money on space exploration and exploitation is a terrible idea. I've grown up with enough science fiction to want humans to thrive and achieve widespread dispersal. Practically, I think that such dispersal needs to start at the moon rather then Mars and don't understand why people are so hot to skip that step. All the same problem apply, but in the "Shallow end" or the solar system. We'd need to not only stabilize the earth but develop sustainable food and other technologies for such a colony to be at all effective.

Also, Fuck, Musk, Bezos and capitalism, I'm no fan of any of them.

As to a few of the points in the video:

Colonialism:

Equating the destruction of extraterrestrial microbes to the genocides that colonialism has wrought upon the earth seems iffy. Are microbial lives at all equivalent to human ones? Would the destruction of Polio or Smallpox or any other microbial disease also be bad? Extraterrestrial life might be unique, but I'm not sure that people are ready to flatten the hierarchy that far. There is also a bad reverse equivalency. I'm not about to tell indigenous people the genocide of their ancestors is at all comparable to the destruction of microbes. 

I agree that colonialism is a loaded idea, and has done horrible things on the planet. but I think that most people will see a difference between microbes that answer a binary question in an unsatisfying way, (Are there aliens? "Yes, they were single celled organisms on Mars.") and the suffering of human beings. I think that most people are going to see the colonizing of a planet as a colony without a genocide. They are going to see it a a triumph over nature or adverse conditions. Whereas Manifest Destiny that murders native peoples can be easily seen as wrong, Manifest Destiny over an "empty" planet won't have that stigma.

I get the argument of "If we do this, we make an irrevocable change. We destroy something and can never, EVER, get it back." But I just can't see that destruction being anything like the suffering that our colonial history has inflicted. Even getting into a vegan headspace, I just don't see it.

Safety and Conditions:

The people proposing this are ready for a crash program. They see the problem as existential are are more then willing to exceed existing safety parameters. Also for much of their program, they can cut those costs in half with one way trips. The first few landers might have to go and come back, but a intersystem shuttle would scale into a system to drop cargo (and colonists) on Mars and come back for more. 

“So what if you are more likely to develop cancer and die fairly young on Mars, in the mean time you’re labor will ‘save humanity.’ That’s a price worth paying.”

Further, imagine their recruiting possibilities. Die young of cancer on Mars, or struggle jobless here on Earth. With the right incentives they could have waiting lists of people ready to take a one way trip to Mars. People ready to work and die under harsh conditions. Just as those early North American colonies, or so many failed wagon trains across the continent. Or for an even more dystopian view, the idea of a space penal colony.

I could see a multi-tier (dare I say hierarchal?) systems that 'purchases' the young and healthy much like military recruitment with a promise of service building Mars results in a guarantee of space on Mars to live. Signing bonuses and such to family that are staying on Earth. 

"My daughter went to Mars, and all I got was $50k and a lifetime of Amazon Prime."

It'd be sold as the next Grand Adventure, and there are plenty who'd eat that up. Then you have the scientists, doctors and middle managers, people who would stay out of the sun and be eligible for return trips or short terms. At the top you have the paying customers, the billionaires and people who've built the systems. Those with unrestricted calorie rations and large, comfortable quarters. Obviously, they would not be visiting in the first few years. 

I agree the total control on information would result in the sort of lies that we see in the historical record, and while treaties might say that no one can own anything beyond Earth, the Musk/Bezos colony will certainly be a company town. It would be awful. Industrial accidents, the danger of the environment, restricted rations and supplies, and laughable medical care. Conditions would be horrible and human rights non-existent. The sort of people who support such a crash plan for the survival of humanity see these as luxuries anyways. 

But Why Go To Mars Anyways?

Spoiler alert, "It's Free Real Estate."

Seriously, megatons of gold would not make Mars profitable. The costs of moving mass in and out of gravity wells requires big money. Today a Kilo of gold is ~$60k. A conservative estimate of getting a kilo onto the Moon was $15k. Mars would likely be an order of magnitude more. If you were able to mine and process the gold, what would you do with it? Getting the gold back to Earth, would depress the price of gold. So why would you spend all that money to get Martian gold?

You don't, Every guide to wealth will talk about real estate at length. All colonialism was a platform for the acquisition of real estate. The rich aren't going to go to Mars to bring resources to Earth. They are going to Mars to develop room and resources on Mars. Real estate is a long game, interplanetary real estate even more so. The land rushes and Earthly frontiers are over. The new robber barons of Musk and Bezos don't have a place they can take over and shape from the ground up. There are already pesky residents and governments claiming everything. This is why you hear other Libertarians talk about "seasteading," floating or underwater cities. They want to create new land to control and exploit.

Musk, Bezos, and the rest of the "Go to Mars" brigade want to set themselves up as tyrants. They want to own the planet, or at least the colonies and life support infrastructure, to maintain control and build wealth. Those that aren't billionaires see opportunity in supporting their schemes. It's easier in their minds to be be well off on Mars then on Earth, simply because their is less competition. Also because they think the lack or laws, standards and other restrictions will empower their rise.

In conclusion, No we shouldn't go to Mars. Not for a long time. We need to solve the ecological, political and financial issues here first, because of the 2 planets, Earth is more likely to be able to host humans then Mars. One mistake on Mars can kill the entire colony, easier to survive on Earth.

Critiquing a Libertarian Response to Defunding the Police

Some responses to the linked video:

That people are using this event to frame an argument about the police being racists is not arguing police brutality doesn't happen to white people. (In fact, these organizations have taken up the cause of white victims of police brutality as well). There is a difference is scale between how it happens to white people and people of color. 

Further, even if this specific event is not racially motivated, it becomes a shorthand for the disproportionate amount of brutality that is leveled at people of color. Any particular case might not be racially motivated, but the trend that people of color are the victims of police violence far more often then white people exists.

A holistic approach to police brutality is fine, but if you look at it from a colorblind perspective, the differences in scale between ethnic groups is ignored.  For example, in New York City, white people got stopped-and-frisked, but people of color were stopped and frisked at a much higher rate even though they had a much lower rate of being found with a gun, which was the stated purpose of the program. "Getting past" race would be great, but it's not on the people harmed, it's on the structures, organizations and people doing the harm. 

Regarding privatizing the police: I can't imagine that working so well with police considering how its doing with prisons. Remember, you can forfeit your Constitutional rights to a private entity in a contract. For example YouTube/FaceBook is not beholden to the 1st Amendment. What would constrain private police to the Constitutional protections we enjoy now? We've had private police in history, see the abuses of the Pinkertons. Under our current system we the people have (notional) control over the government, and protections therefrom. We do not have protections against the depredations of corporations.

I don't think the market gives us the responsiveness that the speaker does. Consider "Right job at the right price," So you get top level courteous policing for the neighborhoods with large tax bases, and bargain basement "Screw your rights" policing for communities without the tax base? Considering that poverty is correlated with race, such a program would make these matters much worse. That budget operator can say "Well, your community can't afford a company that doesn't shoot first, what are you going to do?"

We have more power over governmental police because we have power of their their leadership, their budget and the laws that govern their behavior. Adding a layer of abstraction where the people control the government and the government contracts the police would make the police less accountable to the people. A solution is to grant more direct control of the police to the people. Create police review boards, have the policies and leadership of the police accountable to the people. Remove qualified immunity, And change the priority from cops coming home safely at the expense of the people, to the people being protected by the police, even the suspects.

Yes changing the law is important. And that is a part of the argument to defund or abolish the police. About the drug war, John Ehrlichman is on record saying the Drug war was started to harass black people and anti-war activists. Again, racism is at the root of these issues. We agree, that the over-policing is a big part of of the problem. Defunding the police in favor of programs to help people with problems, or abolishing the police to build something better in its place, these are ways to get to a more equitable world with less oppression.

What To Do With Lawbreakers?

Here we have the problem of sentencing. Sentences of restuition and fines favor the rich. Sentences of punishment and deprivation don't create positive change. Sentences of rehabilitation are difficult to implement, are arguably unfair and inconsistent and many see them as a way for the criminal to get over on the law abiding.

The answer to that question will determine how we address issues like the rights of criminals to the means of Self-defense, voting, organizational power (business ownership, church/non-profit membership) and other things that may not be human rights, but are the rights of the free. After a person has served their sentence, are they forever a second-class citizen? If they have to petition for their rights back, who decides? Is their decision strictly rules based or does judgement play a part? Who's judgement do we trust?

The guidance to all these questions will come down to "Are people basically good or basically bad?" I like to think people are basically good and that it might be me in chains before the court, so how might I want to be treated? It might be me judged guilty, what would be the reasonable sentence? It might be me blinking in the sun after years incarcerated, how would I want to be treated?
Or what do you think we should do with the convicted? Where should the law draw the line between jail and a fine? What should society kill for, and how should we police ourselves? Can a debt to society ever be paid, or should a conviction be a scarlet letter, forever branding you and limiting your life?

My COPPA Letter

"Please focus enforcement on YouTube and other large corporations and not on the individual creators. By all means truly bad actors should be pursued, but there is so much content that attracts a mixed audience that the benefit of the doubt should given to creators. This is further amplified by YouTube's internal filtering that makes serving adult audiences  much more difficult. YouTube channels that focus on adult interests have to use language and tools that are "family friendly" if they want their viewership to survive. This makes most of the content attractive to adults, teens and children.

Also, a large concern I have is the standards this ruling is setting for a post-monopoly online video world. Should YouTube's internet video dominance be toppled or broken up, smaller video platforms serving more diverse viewerships may emerge. While Alphabet/YouTube has the infrastructure and funding to enact deep changes, a more leveled market will have smaller platforms that may not. With Platform as a Service and Infrastructure as a Service (See Google Cloud Platform, Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services) this can affect the safety and security of tenants on such platforms if the rentiers are required to police them. Without access to these services, online video hosting may be prohibitively expensive, chilling speech, silencing minorities and marginalized populations and reinforcing large corporation market control and gatekeeping.

Online speech is the printing press of the early 21st century. It is a democratizing force that puts power in the hands of the people. Online video has lowered the barrier to entry and created a wealth of content and information free at the point of access for everyone. Protecting children from predatory advertising is important, I wish you well in your enforcement of that. Please don't chill the speech of many to stop the wrongs of a few."

You can leave a comment on the YouTube COPPA situation as well, before December 9th 2019.

Streaming Services

Disney Plus has all the media talking talking about streaming and the market regarding it. Stories about Netflix and other services cracking down on password sharing and the shuffle of content are rampant. So I might as well write one too.

Netflix is now in a first mover disadvantage position. When Netflix started, password sharing was allowed because it created subscribers. It's how I came to the service. When Netflix was the biggest and best player on the block it could get most streaming rights and now the other content creators are cutting out the Netflix middleman. Netflix can see that Disney+ and other producer controlled streaming services mean that the content owners are no longer going to license to them. To their credit, they've been working on this issue for 3-5 years now, trying to transition to a content creation platform. But the problem is they can't sustain growth that way. The content churn and loss of fan favorites that aren't driving new subscriptions is turning off the existing subscribers.

In my humble opinion, Hulu is not going to be here long. It was a beautiful experiment that will be the first casualty of Disney+. Disney is now the sole owner. What content is not Disney distributed is going to be returning to the producers streaming sites and Disney-controlled content will migrate to Disney+. Netflix is at the middle of the end. They have the brand and subscription base to putter along for a while, but their original content isn't enough to draw new subs and longer term subscribers are going to start leaving it for other pastures.

Amazon Prime is setting itself up as the next Hulu and partnering with nearly every content producer except Disney. You can add HBO and Starz and others onto Prime, pay and watch in one place. As you can also buy* media there that is accessible even after most streaming rights move, it's my new choice for best streaming site. It's too bad the player is not great. It's improved recently though.

YouTube needs to get people subscribing to be profitable. However it's been free so long that that might kill it, especially with the new Terms of Conditions rolling out that presages a content purge.  The December 10th changes look to remove popular but advertiser unfriendly content. It could also lead to ad-blocking users being banned. Together these could likely lead to a steep drop in user base. Without the free ad-viewing and if people don't subscribe, Google/Alphabet could close it or triple-down on corporate advertising accounts.

Specialist content like anime and web-humor (like Dropout/CollegeHumor) will probably keep going, but suffer from the coming YouTube changes. This is just speculation, but if YouTube goes hard on "no longer commercially viable," against sites getting revenue for advertiser unfriendly videos through Patreon or some other paid platform, these sites will lose their best advertising. I think their best move is shared platforms like Amazon Prime and VRV. Corporate sponsorship like Sony buying Funimation might help some of the largest ones.

 *A 3 letter shorthand for "license non-exclusive streaming rights that can be taken away at any time"

Non-forceful solutions

People say "Firearms safety" and training. Aside from SECURING YOUR FIREARMS that is not the issue. Safety training prevents accidents, not murder. Accidents are at a very low level. Training to know how to use a gun would logically increase the amount of death, as more shootings would be competent shootings, resulting in less wounds and more fatalities.

The problems are crime (robbery assault et al), murder and suicide. In reverse order:

Suicide, non-forceful solutions;

 1. Reduce "Shit Life Syndrome" by increasing social supports for families and individuals. That mean s food security, housing security, availability of healthcare, dental et al that can be accessed without a burden to the person. I think that UBI and government programs can do this faster in our existing framework then community based solutions but that's method, not solution.
 2. Beyond securing the base of Mazlow's Pyramid, rebuilding community is key. That means creating a culture of inclusiveness, and non-hierarchal mentors and other supportive people. It means mental health services to increase coping skills and emotional healthcare. While these people are not mentally ill in a DSM-V way, the tools to help people before they choose to kill themselves by killing others are in the realm of mental health.

Murder, non-forceful solutions;

3. While the above will reduce both individual suicide and mass murder as suicide, there is an additional factor, Revenge. American society is built on the concept of retribution. Our system is built of using naked force to exact vengeance for wrongs. While the catharsis of seeing Rambo or The Punisher or even the courts harm people who've wronged them is great, it's creates a culture of violence as the solution. Combine that with individualist philosophy and a feeling of being ignored or unheard (see community above). This isn't turnkey, changing this means changing our minds first, our words and art, our laws and disagreeing with those that support revenge as justice.

Crime, non-forceful solutions;

4. The remaining motivation for using force, specifically firearms, to harm someone is generally financial gain. Robbery et al. I believe that ensuring that people's needs are taken care of will help with a lot of this. There is also greed. People who want more and would rather use force to take it, the work to earn it. This again becomes a social solution of de-empathizing conspicuous consumption, praising the inexpensive and functional, promoting people making their own art and aesthetic improvements.

Nothing is going to eliminate all crime, murder, suicide. But these changes will go a long way to reducing those root causes.

Even Evil Lives Have Value

No human is worthless. Life have value and universal support must be universal. Even to the worst mass murderers etc.  
This doesn't conflict with my belief that people harmful to others and society may need to have violence, even lethal violence inflicted upon them. It's like medicine or toxin/antitoxin. Cutting out septic body parts may be necessary to save the person and other organs. But the ethical doctor planning surgery will try to limit the amount excised and attempt to heal the injured parts before resorting to removing them.


Or to be explicit: We (as society) may have to kill a Nazi etc. That is a tragedy we may have to act upon to help save society. To protect people doing no harm. BUT even the worst Nazi is a human, with human rights. They are not expendable, they are not worthless. If the person can be saved and the memetic infection flushed (or made non-virulent) that is always a better course.  


We cannot successfully advocate for the abolishment of prisons (replaced by humane secure hospice facilities keeping people who hurt others safe and separated from society) AND say things like "Throw RKelly under the jail."

Either the torture and inhumane conditions of jail are a just punishment, or they are not. Nobody wants to be seen advocating for the rights of assholes, but if we want a world without the horror of prisons, we need to accept the cost that the truly bad and harmful people will be housed humanely and treated medically at society's expense.

This is partly why I want to secure humane housing, utilities, healthcare and food support for ALL people, regardless of means, criminal history or other circumstance. Otherwise there will always be the "Why are my taxes supporting $person when $person2 is more deserving?" My argument is: Our societal cost should support us all.

When I talk about Universal rights to housing, healthcare etc. I include our political enemies. I include those who wish harm and even have done harm if we've managed to stop them without killing them. We may need to restrict some freedoms to quarantine their harm from others (like humane prisons / rehab facilities) but we don't get to categorize them as less then human. We don't have the right to torture them or starve them or enslave them. Human rights apply to all humans. 
 Without this, we risk the bigoted traps of the past.