#majoraldermann

//Outgoing Transmission: Destination - Unknown//The problem inherent in your proposal is that there are no small number of planets that are incapable of sustaining their population on the resources they possess, while others are primed for almost nothing but the production of said resources (food, resources to be refined into medical supplies, etc.). You're setting up a flawed system that automatically will put those planets without certain resources at a disadvantage, entirely dependent on "diplomatic" relations with worlds that provide the basic amenities their populations need to survive.

John bit his lower lip for a moment, somewhat surprised that the confrontational nature of the conversation had turned from mockery to political debate. If it was an Insurrectionist on the other end, and with the given name he was almost assured that it was, he'd have expected more posturing and bravado, more decrying of the UNSC and the UEG than open, honest discourse. 

//Moreover, it presents an issue that I'm uncertain you've concerned. Humanity is ever expanding, ever growing - rather, it was before the Human-Covenant War- and even then our population continues to increase at a rate that, under your proposal, would ensure the eventual need for the colonization of new worlds or severe standards enacted regarding reproduction... How would, under your system, worlds be claimed, settled and colonized? Who would pay for it? Who would have sovreignity, and if the proposal is that it would be a communal effort between planetary governments, why? And what reason does any one government have to uphold it's end of the bargain, in the end, particularly if it's one of these resource-rich and thus dominant powers I mentioned before?