SpaceX’s Declaration of Space Independence is Just Common Sense

Mars. Photo taken from Hubble Space Telescope. Public Domain.
Mars. Photo taken from Hubble Space Telescope. Public Domain.

Sooner or later, absent some kind of mass extinction event, humankind will establish itself there: On the Moon. On Mars. Among the asteroids. Someday even on planets orbiting distant stars.

There isn’t — or at least shouldn’t be — anything controversial about that prediction. We have the technology to get to some of those places already, and we’re developing the technology to support ourselves there too.

Related questions that are already stirring controversy, though they also shouldn’t: What will the rules look like out there? Who will make them? Who will enforce them?

There’s a simple, correct, and obvious answer to those questions, and the beta terms of service for Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite-powered Internet Service Provider, openly state it:

“For Services provided on Mars, or in transit to Mars via Starship or other colonization spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities. Accordingly, Disputes will be settled through self-governing principles, established in good faith, at the time of Martian settlement.”

Quick disclaimer: The above was posted on Reddit and is cited/quoted in a number of “mainstream media” stories. The terms of service link previously indexed in search engines at Starlink.com returns a “404 page not found” error. “Fake news?” Maybe. But still worth thinking about.

Earth’s (tentatively) space-faring governments, as well as the United Nations, consider it obvious that they can and should govern human settlements in space.

The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, aka “The Outer Space Treaty,” entered into force in 1967 and boasts 110 signatory regimes. “The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies,” it says, “shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.”

That’s not how it’s going to work.

Starting in the 18th century and to this very day, Earth’s governments have learned how hard it is to control distant colonies, or even to hold them as colonies at all. Great Britain lost control of the United States in 1783 and of India in 1947. Both colonies were located less than 5,000 miles from London.

The Moon lies nearly 240,000 miles from Earth. Mars averages about 140 million miles away, about 36 million miles at the closest point in the two planets’ continuing orbital dance.

Like settlers departing Independence to start down the Oregon Trail — or for that matter, young adults moving out of Mom and Dad’s house — humans leaving Earth will immediately start making their own rules, to deal with their unique situations.

The worst mistake Earth’s governments can make is to pretend otherwise. Attempting to preemptively bind the solar system’s settlers to Earth rule will only delay humanity’s journey to the stars, and attempting to enforce such rule on distant “colonies” will lead  to war and end in failure.

Earth’s space settlers will, for better or worse, do things their own way. Earth’s regimes shouldn’t resist that reality.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

A Lot More People Elected Jack Dorsey Than Elected Ted Cruz

Zodiac Killer cipher, San Francisco Examiner, July 31st 1969. Public domain.
Zodiac Killer cipher, San Francisco Examiner, July 31st 1969. Public domain.

“[W]ho the hell elected you,” US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey at an October 28 Commerce Committee hearing, “and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear?”

Cruz was exercised over Twitter’s decision to block tweets promoting a series of New York Post stories about the supposed contents of Hunter Biden’s supposed laptop — stories which Cruz and his partisan comrades hope against hope will damage Joe Biden’s presidential campaign badly enough to garner their own candidate, Donald Trump, another four years in the White House.

Twitter (and Facebook) did indeed exhibit poor decision-making skills in trying to stop the stories’ spread. But we don’t need Ted Cruz and Friends to punish them. The Streisand Effect reversed their decision for them, and they took major hits on credibility and trustworthiness to boot.

Which brings up the question: Who the hell DID elect Jack Dorsey?

And while we’re at it, who the hell elected Ted Cruz?

Jack Dorsey is elected by more than 300 million Twitter users, any of whom are free to walk away from the platform at any time if they no longer find that platform worthwhile. 100% of those users vote for or against him every day, day in and day out. If they’re not happy, Twitter’s stockholders and advertisers aren’t happy. And if Twitter’s stockholders and advertisers aren’t happy, Dorsey’s out of a job.

Ted Cruz, on the other hand, was elected by 4.2 million Texans. That’s less than 15% of the state’s population. Nearly as many Texans (4.045 million) preferred Democrat Beto O’Rourke. 65,000 of them preferred Libertarian Neal Dikeman. More than 20 million expressed no preference at all, some because they had no preference, some because they didn’t think their preference was worth the effort to express in the voting booth, some because they weren’t allowed to vote.

But for some reason, Ted Cruz seems to believe that he has a broader and more legitimate mandate to run Twitter than Jack Dorsey does. And not just Twitter. Ted Cruz thinks he’s entitled to run pretty much everything, at least when he can get 50 other US Senators, 218 US Representatives, and a president to agree.

You can fire Jack Dorsey from your life right now, by deleting your Twitter account, with no repercussions beyond not being able to use the service he offers.

You can’t fire Ted Cruz. Nor can those 4.2 million Texans, at least until 2024. And if you don’t want the “services” he offers, he’ll send enforcers with guns to make sure you accept (and pay for) them anyway, or be caged or killed.

Cruz reminds me of a feared figure from my childhood, a guy who also couldn’t be fired, who also demanded that platforms of the day publish the stories he wanted published, and who also backed up his demands with threats of murder. If there’s a difference between the Zodiac killer and Ted Cruz, it’s that the Zodiac had the guts to pull the trigger himself.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In Five States, the Presidential Race Isn’t the Most Important Thing on the Ballot

FreeImages.com/Mateusz Atroszko
FreeImages.com/Mateusz Atroszko

Yes, everyone’s caught up in the question of who will win the presidential election next week. Yes, everyone wants to know whether the Democrats will seize control of the US Senate. But those are “horse race” questions, and none of the likely outcomes are, in themselves, likely to result in long-term change from business as usual. The campaigns are full of sound and fury, but they signify not much more than mild policy tweaks.

If you’re looking for significant and lasting change, look further down your ballot. Especially if you live in Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, South Dakota, or Mississippi. Voters in those first four states will decide whether to legalize recreational use of marijuana; in the fifth, whether to allow medicinal use.

Democratic vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris has pledged that a Joe Biden administration would work to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level.

Given the Biden/Harris record as drug warriors and mass incarcerators, I’m not sure I find that promise believable, but the tide is definitely turning on cannabis. In fact, I’m surprised the first Trump administration never made a move on the issue. But these ballot issues could make the difference nationwide, not just just in those five states.

Marijuana wasn’t criminalized because it’s harmful. Marijuana was criminalized so that federal agents like Harry Anslinger wouldn’t lose their jobs when alcohol prohibition ended, and so that William Randolph Hearst’s wood-pulp paper mills wouldn’t have to compete with cheaper hemp paper.

Marijuana hasn’t remained illegal at the federal level because it’s harmful. It’s remained illegal at the federal level because keeping it illegal directs billions of dollars into government bureaucracies with thousands of employees. Those bureaucracies and those employees  constitute a special interest lobby — historically a very effective one — within the government itself.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once admonished a group of petitioners: “OK, you’ve convinced me. Now go out and bring pressure on me.”

So far, 33 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, and 11 states and DC have legalized recreational use, in direct nullification of federal law. That’s pressure.

Four more states in the latter category and one more in the medical category, with more than 2/3 of Americans supporting full legalization,  would be even more pressure.

Maybe even enough pressure to finally counter the self-interested lobbying of the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, as well as “non-profit” hangers-on whose (often taxpayer-funded) budgets depend on scaring us all with tall tales about marijuana.

Sooner or later, Congress and the White House will cave and end the war on marijuana. Voters in Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, South Dakota, and Mississippi can make it sooner rather than later. And hopefully they will.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY