- Position‹2 of 2
- Mars needs a planned separate government
- Argument1 of 2›
A company rules Mars
With companies becoming arguably more influential players on the global stage than some nation-states, it is perceivable that Mars will be under the rule of, for example, Elon Musk's SpaceX.
The argument
Proponents of a planned, separate government for Mars point to who is actually building the means to get there. With the success of SpaceX and its development of reusable rockets, a private company has accomplished more regarding space colonisation than governmental organisations have been able to, and the gap is one of demonstrated capability rather than stated ambition. Aside from isolated individuals, companies like SpaceX are also the only ones talking seriously about settling Mars, and arguably the only ones soon capable of doing so. Governments, on this account, are not competing for the role of first settler. From that the argument draws a conclusion about authority. Whoever establishes a settlement will shape the conditions under which its first inhabitants live, simply because the vehicles, the habitats and the supply line belong to them, and the party getting the process started is therefore the party best placed to lead a Martian government. Even on a weaker reading the outcome is similar: if nothing else, a private company will likely enter into an agreement with governing forces and adopt leadership responsibilities under it, taking on the functions of government because of the absence of government involvement on the ground. The implication is that a Martian settlement would be run by an arrangement that does not yet exist, devised by a body that is not a state and is not answerable in the way states are. That, on this view, is precisely why the arrangement should be planned rather than improvised. If a company is going to rule Mars, the terms of that rule – what powers it holds, under what agreement, and answerable to whom – are matters to be settled deliberately and in advance, which is what it means to say that a Mars colony needs a planned, separate government.
Premises
Counter-arguments
The fact that a company is powerful and innovative does not automatically make it qualified to lead a planet. Also, just because private companies are the current leaders in plans to settle Mars does not mean that governmental organizations like NASA will not join the effort in the future. If Earth governments and companies settle Mars as a joint effort rather than simply the latter on their own, it is debatable which of the two should lead the newly settled planet.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Capability in launch and transport is not capability in government, and the premise slides between them: nothing about building reusable rockets bears on adjudicating disputes, allocating scarce resources, or protecting the people who would live under the result. [Rejecting P2] "Getting the process started" is a claim about priority in time rather than about authority, and the premise's own fallback — that a company would enter agreements with governing forces — concedes that the authority comes from elsewhere. The argument also does not support the position it is filed under: describing who would end up in charge by default is the opposite of the planned separate government the position calls for.
Further reading
More on the SpaceX plan to colonize Mars: https://www.geekwire.com/2016/spacex-elon-musk-colonize-mars/