Rather be a gangster of love...just don't call me Maurice (or Shirley for that matter). :)

Not evil, just purely self interested, intent on attaining whatever they wish and feeling empowered enough to, in the absence of authority, do whatever they wish.

Why would you get involved in a place where you would be at the mercy of a capricious business. You seem to be asking for a government to define the use of force by laws before space exploration and settlement. The absurdity of accepting that idea or dealing with business can be seen in the latest episode, "Oxygen", of Dr. Who, where the business has control of how many breaths a customer has paid for in the special suits that need be worn in the airless environment controlled by the business. Don't keep up with payments means a not very nice death.

One can live without air for approximately two minutes. That means there really isn't much bargaining time if you're running out. We can go for a couple of days without water - a little more but again not much time. People can survive without food for 2-3 weeks - a significantly larger gap of inconvenience. (People can survive indefinitely without owning land, so I'm not sure why that subject enters into the picture here.) The point is if the total supply of air and water is already owned - and under a monopoly no less - then one's bargaining power to obtain such is negligible and no actual free market exists. It would be the ultimate case of "he who owns the gold makes the rules" (with gold being substituted for air/water). Refusal to capitulate to the demands of the supplier - no matter what they may be results in death. That is the case being made by AJ and I completely agree with him that it presents a dilemma.

That situation differs significantly from what we experience here on this planet. No one "owns" the air. In fact, even the notion of such is absurd. Water is readily available in most areas of the globe for a pittance. Thus two of the major necessities of life (and the corresponding high priorities of need for such) are off the negotiating table. Right to life becomes a tertiary concern instead of a constant day-to-day struggle (see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs). And when life itself is constantly an issue, other matters are quickly subsumed - such as freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc.

Imagine the life where any kind of political action against the Company/State (including unionization) is considered subversive speech. The Company/State can very easily place a clause in your contract that says that they can withhold oxygen for disagreement. There goes freedom of speech. There goes right to work for competition. There goes any kind of representative government. Even asking for a raise could get you terminated - and I don't mean just unemployed. There goes any kind of ethical alignment differing at all from the Company/State: no conscientious objectors. In short, it would by tyranny to exceed that seen at any point on this planet and there would be absolutely nothing that could be done to change it.

Space cowboys here we come!!!

I sadly think your prediction is right. A free society 100 feet below the ocean is more practical and likely than one some place like Mars.

If Mars were arable, I could see people going there and living poor and free. Poor and rich requires trade. Ideally the colony should be remote enough to make looting impractical but close enough that trade with the rest of the world is easy. Whether it's an individual, country, or colony, being self-sufficient in the sense of not trading with others is a clear recipe for poverty. Value comes from people specializing and serving one another freely in a way that people are willing to pay for.

So people might build facilities to mine the gas giants in corporate-owned operations like you describe. Maybe it would be like those mining towns I recently saw in eastern KY or the ones depicted in The Expanse, where the company owns everything pays workers in scrip valid at the company store. Once there are enough people for an economy that can trade, and companies that spring up to serve the mining industry starting getting orders from customers on Earth, maybe it becomes part of the economy. They sell stuff that the exigencies of space life have med them good at and they buy food and whatever is easier to make on Earth. But then you have to keep the looting from starting.

I've only watched the first season of The Expanse, but in that fictional universe the asteroid belt is run/controlled by Earth companies and seek independence. Mars is independent from Earth and is contemptuous of its bloated gov't.

I agree all of this makes for great stories but it's easier to create free institutions on Earth than in space.

America was not "settled by indentured servants and slaves". Some who came or were forced to come were.

Burning people at the stake for witchcraft was one of the many injustices by pre-Enlightenment religious zealots engaged in power struggles in the early colonies.

Your assuming that mankind or at least the one's in charge are evil. I understand, it's what we have observed; but mankind, (humankind) is not evil, it's not in our nature, it has been put there, in many ways but it doesn't define us. Now, of course, it is the nature of humanoids. If we all were awakened to reality, allowed to engage our minds and our nature born mutuality with others, things would be different. We should, start right NOW, adopt the process of allowing mankind to be the best it can be.
So the question is, is this possible. The answer: probably not at the present time, but sometimes, cautiously assuming the best of others, letting them know that you expect this and they are capable of doing so...is all that is needed.

After all...we know that an Objectivist run Company of the AR brand has the best chance of achieving the best environment and outcome possible.
Many of the films we watch of this venue postulate the outcomes you are properly concerned...maybe, we need films that project just the opposite?
If science fiction often equals science fact at some point in the future, then wouldn't it make sense to assume the best of all outcomes...might that change the culture a bit? Isn't that how our culture survived during the late 40's and 50's; projecting the best thoughts, behaviors, morals, ethics and world views?

Under who's "tight control". Like land and food? That is what property rights are for: we are not ghosts living in the ether; we require property rights to live in a material world.

That is the same false argument given by Marxists on earth.

Like Total Recall, Piers Anthony, it just would be a matter of reducing oxygen, water or food for non compliance to compel submission. Sure people can rebel, but considering the disconnect, the nearest government force could be hundreds of millions of miles away, they could wipe the slate, kill everyone, and no one would be wiser - blame it on a breach, a fire, etc..

At 300 million+ miles away (low balling estimate) when a communication takes upward of at least 1 hour in either direction, how can you endure they abide by American ideals?

Consider a mining colony on an asteroid where the company spent hundreds of millions of dollars to mine platinum for profit. Do you think, considering the absence of any real authority and the dependency of everyone on their ability to provide food, water, shelter and breathable oxygen,, that they would tolerate a workers strike? Stealing? A refusal to working 14-18 hour shift?

Who will tell the people back on earth that these things are occurring, or that someone has been killed by the company, if communication is restricted to the company or shut off entirely?

Agreed. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

Long ago a friend of mine did some high dollar tech consulting work for the Saudi's in Saudi Arabia. He was grossly overpaid. When he completed his work, the contract fully satisfied, the Prince refused to let him leave then country until more work was done. He said he spend 3 weeks additional working free of charge on things that were not within his project's scope, only then was his passport returned to him and he was allowed to leave. He confided that he will never work for an middle eastern country again.

How much more severe would this be if it was in an asteroid mining community or on a planet or moon with any neutral means of survival.

It depends very much on how colonization is handled, but I would expect that any strictly governed colony would rebel, and that at least a colony on the Moon or in space would succeed in its rebellion for reasons spelt out in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

It's understood that in these new and most probably harsh environments there must be stringent rules for the safety of all concerned; beyond that though, an effort should be made to educate and maybe even regulate and require these companies and settlements to abide by the American idea toward the individual freedom and protection from initiatory force, fraud and coercion toward one's personal safety, health, happiness or personal property.

I understand your fear of lost freedom. However, there are so many variables that can occur it makes your premise one of many. Also, much will depend on the technology that has advanced space travel. up to then. Each different way will strongly affect the way pioneers are treated during and after the trip.

I don't think freedom would be lost. You are not considering something important about rights, namely the hierarchy of rights. The right to life is the basis of all rights, the right to property is the implementation of those rights. Just as a thug who puts a gun to my head abnegates his right to his gun, which I can freely destroy in self-defense, a company owning some sort of terra-former or oxygen and water would be abnegating his right to property as soon as he threatened my life. Of course someone owning such property would have the upper hand and be able to demand more, but it should never be a question that those people that signed that contract to work did not sign away their lives.

We can dream of a scenario where it seems property and life can be in conflict, but it must be understood that that conflict is false, because the owner of such property having threatened my life has abnegated his right to property, so therefore a right to property no longer exists for him, so my actions of self-defense are in complete rational non-conflict with reality and the other people around, whom are rational of course.

Objectivism advocates a government based on the principles of rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism, but a major part of these things are natural rights, which can operate in a context of a government or in a context of anarchy. The governmental context is preferable, but the principles of self-defense, self-ownership, and the right to life would still be operable in an anarchic context, such as that would be in space foraging.

Seems to me that an earth-like planet (breathable air, water, things to eat) uninhabited by competing intelligent life would hold the only opportunity for freedom.
But even then colonists would probably come already signed up under a contract with some company or government.
It taking a long time to get there should provide an opportunity for a revolution. The 1776 British Empire only had ships with sails.
The warp speed of Star Wars is the Empire's primary tool for enslavement. Those Death Stars are only secondary weapons.

lol, I am actually. It help to provoke the question.

Freedom never automatically happens. It depends on what people believe and are willing fight for. This will be true in space as much as anywhere.

Space life will for along time be highly regulated and regimented. When going off your own means death, and all kinds of errors (like leaving the door open) can kill everyone nearby, expect to find group cooperation and rule-enforcement emphasized

But when people can go off and live on their own or in small groups, expect freedom to flourish because the frontiers will be endless.

There certainly are a few provisions that we to a large part take for granted here: air and water being the first two. We take for granted the right to life because air is free and water is cheap (and clean). But what happens when air is neither free nor easy to obtain? Water along with it? When both air and water become very precious commodities under tight control, life itself is then controlled by access to them and you then put into direct conflict the right to life and the right to property. Which one takes precedence?

Great question for thought, AJ!

Absolutely. Many people take for granted air and water - two VERY precious commodities anywhere in the Universe! When you lack the control of procurement of these items (necessary for life itself) it becomes very easy to parlay that control of life into many other aspects of control.

Watch the TV series "The Expanse". It's a plausible look into a possible future where humanity has colonised the solar system, and been drawn into all manner of social and political conflicts arising from the various environments people experience.

AJA,
I believe that we are loosing our freedoms regardless if some leave the confines of earth or not. Then again the number of earthlings that actually leave the earth via a machine will be very very few over the next 20 years and when they all die in space maybe the space program will come to an end. That is until the aliens return to show us how it is done.

found on Amazon for free. Downloaded and in the "to read" queue. Thanks again

https://www.amazon.com/Planet-Strappe...