Complex Numbers

Star Start

I've thought about this one before. The perils of being a science fiction fan and sometimes a writer. From "JAFBG"  [XGC]:

You've been given the opportunity to start a new civilisation off-planet. Who is banned from joining you and why? What rules will you put in place?

The only socially acceptable answer to the first question is "fat white guys."

But since I'm a fat white guy, I won't say that. But I wouldn't ban any demographic group. I'd want as diverse a population as possible, not only for the sake of inclusion but for genetic preservation.

The only people banned outright from joining would be assholes. Why? Because they're assholes. How I'd sieve them out is a different question; I'd have to resort to psychological screenings, and of course the criteria would be known only to me to prevent cheating. Because assholes will cheat given the chance.

The assholes can stay here and inherit the Earth.

I will resist the temptation to ban "everyone except me and a wide selection of attractive females" from the journey. 15-year-old me lived a very long time ago and had different priorities, but he's still in here somewhere.

As for rules, well, as much as I'd like to be a benevolent dictator, history has shown that no matter how benevolent the dictator starts out, becoming a dictator makes you an asshole. Not to mention that there's nothing in the prompt about me living indefinitely, and whoever succeeds me will face the same problems.

No, as imperfect as it is, the only rules I'd put in place would be ones to make the civilization (US spelling here) a democratic republic. Like the Constitution of the US, only hopefully without all the baggage like the "3/5 rule." There are of course other models for democracies, but the US is the one I'm most familiar with, and as ideals go, it's not bad -- we just sometimes have trouble living up to those ideals.

Mostly because of assholes.

The essential feature of a democratic republic is to have in place protections for everyone's rights, while allowing for social changes over time. In a pure democracy, the simplistic implementation leads to mob rule. Like, say, suppose 51% of the population votes to ban alcohol. This is obviously one of the worst things that can happen to a society (that's not just my opinion; look at history again), and tramples on the rights of the 49%. Or to use a slightly less controversial example, you can't have 51% of the population say, "We're going to make it illegal to practice [insert specific religion here]."

The goal, therefore, is not to enforce the will of the majority but to protect the rights of the minority. Hence democratic republic instead of pure democracy.

There are contradictions inherent in all of this, of course. I think you'd find that whatever system of rules and government is put into place, there will always be contradictions. We as individuals can't avoid internal contradictions; the problem is only magnified when you get to the government level. The trick is to maximize freedom for everyone to the extent that it's feasible to do so.

Except for assholes.