Would a Mars colony need a fixed government?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Would a Mars colony need a fixed government?
Position1 of 2›: Mars does not need a fixed government
Argument: Anarchy

People on Mars could live their lives just as well, if not better, without a large, formal government ruling over them. Rather, Martian society should encourage common stewardship and a rejection of capitalist principles.

The argument

Mars should be an anarchy because this would allow its citizens to better take care of the planet and each other. A government based on Earth would be too out of touch to truly understand the needs of Mars settlers. Also, a single central governmental organization would not be sufficient to rule the entirety of a planet as large as Mars while also addressing the intricacies of the problems that each colony--and each individual--faces. Anarchism would allow communities and individuals to govern themselves, which would remove the problem of overbearing governing bodies that make laws to which not everyone consents. Establishing anarchism on Mars would also prevent the planet from suffering under the same burdens of capitalism that Earth has. Common stewardship of food, air, and water would prevent mismanagement and ensure equal allocation of these precious resources. Anarchism would also allow for things like healthcare to be free of the cruelties and exploitation of capitalism. Initially, living on Mars would be difficult, which increases the importance of these things being managed cooperatively. This would not be possible under company or government rule, as both of these are too easily subject to corruption.

Context

Anarchism is a philosophical school of thought that rejects the control of one group or person over another, including capitalism, racism, homophobia, government, and other systems of dominance in society. Some anarchists view the possibility of having anarchism on Earth as slim, and as no one has settled Mars so far, it may offer a chance for a fresh start without government intervention or any of the controlling systems present on Earth.

Premises

[P1]An Earth-based government would be too out of touch to understand Mars settlers' needs, and a single central body could not address the distinct problems of each colony and individual on so large a planet. [P2] Anarchism would let communities and individuals govern themselves, removing overbearing bodies that impose laws without everyone's consent. [P3] Common stewardship of food, air, water, and healthcare would prevent the capitalist exploitation and corruption to which company or government rule is prone — especially vital given how difficult early Martian life would be. [C] Therefore, Mars should be an anarchy and does not need a fixed government.

Counter-arguments

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 poses two main problems for true anarchism on Mars. The first is that all activities would have to fall under international law, and the second is that all Mars settlements--even the ones that govern themselves--would still have to be authorized and supervised by a governmental organization on Earth. The necessity of law and the supervision of government make it impossible for a true anarchy to exist on Mars since anarchism traditionally does not have either of these things.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Distance and scale are arguments against a single remote authority, not against fixed government as such. Federal and confederal arrangements exist precisely to combine local self-rule with standing institutions, so this premise supports the sibling position — that Mars needs its own planned government — at least as well as it supports anarchism. [Rejecting P2] "Communities and individuals govern themselves" describes governance rather than its absence. If a Martian settlement can allocate air and water and make that allocation stick, it has an authority; the argument needs to say what makes such an arrangement not a government rather than a small one. [Rejecting P3] The premise assumes the failure mode runs in only one direction. Common stewardship of oxygen, water and medical supplies under acute scarcity requires enforceable rules about who gets what and what follows when someone takes more, and no account is given of how that is settled without coercion. The counter-argument adds a legal obstacle: under the Outer Space Treaty, activities in space are the responsibility of a state party and subject to its authorisation and continuing supervision.