Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

An American On Mars By 2030

Rate this topic


Daedalus

Recommended Posts

But would it not be better to be involved at the private level - morally, economically, and even scientifically?
No, no and no. I do not consider the money stolen. Yes the government is supposed to protect us, and arguments could be made that controlling space does protect us, but the government can do more than that - especially if the general population endorses it. As I had said before, manned spaceflight is supported by 73% of the American population. Based on those numbers, funding for Nasa should be much higher than it is now. Economically, private industry could not support the number of people in the government run space organization. And scientific purposes do not pay the bills.

True, the private space industry is in its infancy, but you'd be getting in on the ground floor of something that has nowhere to go but up (pun recognized, but not intented). There are investment opportunities, career advancements, and scientific opportunities that are the result of merit, without political pressure factoring in.
Private industry will not be ready to send anyone to Mars in my lifetime.

For example: What happens if this noble plan of the Bush Administration gets crippled by the next President who might think space flight is a waste?
No one is going to cancel manned spaceflight in the US. It is now a part of our national image. By the time the next president comes into office, the retirement of the shuttle in 2010 will be unavoidable (one or two shuttles will have already been retired by then), and the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) will have already flown or be very close to flying demonstration flights. It would be much more expensive, and insane, to cancel the CEV and do the upgrades that the shuttle needs to fly for another 20 years.

I'm all for space flight (Earth is so last century ...), and have the highest regard for anyone who can make a career in that industry ... but I don't see NASA getting to Mars before Paul Allen (or another dedicated entrepeneur).
Even before Bush announced that we are going to the Moon and Mars I wouldn't have said Paul Allen could have made it happen first. Trust me, the general public has no idea what an undertaking the trip would be.

[And, by the way ... I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the quote in your sig is originally Robert Heinlein's: "The meek can have the Earth. The rest of us are going to the stars." (Time Enough for Love, 1973)]
Oh really? I looked into that, and I found that he wrote "The meek shall inherit the earth, a 6 foot plot above them" in Time Enough for Love. But if you have the book and that's what it says, let me know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No, no and no. I do not consider the money stolen. Yes the government is supposed to protect us, and arguments could be made that controlling space does protect us, but the government can do more than that - especially if the general population endorses it. As I had said before, manned spaceflight is supported by 73% of the American population. Based on those numbers, funding for Nasa should be much higher than it is now. Economically, private industry could not support the number of people in the government run space organization. And scientific purposes do not pay the bills.

What the government "can do" and what it "should do" are two different beasts. The government can pass a 90% income tax rate if they want. And despite what you may think, the public does not necessarily have to support it.

The government takes money from some people against their will. If they do not pay, men with guns will come to put people in jail or kill them. That's stealing because the objective elements of theft are there no matter what you consider it. The purpose for taking the money does not justify the manner in which it is taken.

You appear to subscribe to the theory that might makes right. If the majority votes for it, it must be right. Unfortunately for you, they have a fallacy for that form of argumentation - argumentum ad populum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but this is not a given fact. This is your opinion.

Of course. It is also my opinion, not a given fact, that if I eat right and exercise regularly I'll live longer.

You seem to be forgetting that the government who provides the stepping stone to the future brings it's chains along for the ride. There is no reason to believe that space will be any freer than any corner of the earth as long as the government is involved in the floor plans.

Yes, some of the early American colonies, Massachusetts, for example, had authoritarian governments. But consider the freedom pioneers enjoyed once they ventured beyond the eastern seaboard. Like the North American continent, once space is opened up for colonization, an infinite number of possibilities will arise. How easy was it for a federal officer to collect excise taxes on whisky manufactured in the vast American West, 1830-1900? Well, it will be even more difficult for Uncle Sam to keep tabs on every nook and cranny of the Solar System in the 22nd century.

Saying this is the way it's always been is not presenting argument. It's like saying, "yes, it's okay to steal money, but it's for a good cause." And that good cause may be more dubious than we realize at this point, regardless of the work of any science fiction author.

Perhaps it would have been better if the Spanish crown had not financed Columbus's voyage to the New World and Europe had waited . . . what? Years? Decades? . . . for a private merchant to undertake the mission. I'm certainly not going to feel guilty at this stage for having benefited from Ferdinand and Isabella's governmental enterprise, any more than I intend to feel guilty for driving on a government road or receiving mail through a government postal system. Nor should my great-grandchildren have any regrets that their beautiful untaxed private home on one of Jupiter's satellites is the end result of a U.S. government project launched back in 1961.

Hopefully, progress means breaking the chains of the past. This includes the government stealing money and being involved in services that are not proper for the government.

As I have said previously on this thread, no one is questioning the principle that all government financing should be voluntary. But, as Ayn Rand recognized, we live in a mixed economy. Given that the money in the U.S. Treasury is not going to go back to its rightful owners, we Objectivists can counsel our political leaders on which expenditures are wise and which are foolish. Altruistic welfare spending is throwing money down a sewer. But, as Ayn Rand said, the space program "has worked for its money, it has earned its keep."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the money in the U.S. Treasury is not going to go back to its rightful owners, we Objectivists can counsel our political leaders on which expenditures are wise and which are foolish.
I disagree. We should keep insisting that the government return the money, even if it for a project that is pretty cool.

Added: We don't want Galt to say -- "given that you guys are in power, I'll show you how to make it work a little better"

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the government "can do" and what it "should do" are two different beasts. The government can pass a 90% income tax rate if they want. And despite what you may think, the public does not necessarily have to support it.
Was I talking about government programs that the public did not support? No. You're bringing up unrealistic scenarios that have no bearing on this discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. We should keep insisting that the government return the money, even if it for a project that is pretty cool.

Added: We don't want Galt to say -- "given that you guys are in power, I'll show you how to make it work a little better"

After 9/11, should we have said, "Go after the terrorists, Mr. President, using only that tiny portion of the U.S. Treasury that is collected by voluntary donations"? Of course not. We recognize that even though government is financed by illegitimate means, some actions of the government can be legitimate. And we need not postpone moral government measures until that distant day when taxation is abolished. Since, as Ayn Rand said, "the space program is the cleanest and best" of all our government programs, it does not contradict Objectivist principles to advocate that a portion of our tax money go to this worthy project -- especially when our survival as a species may depend upon it.

As for John Galt, since this character was in agreement with Ayn Rand on all other political matters, it would come as a surprise if he differed with his creator on the space program issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you step back from the specific concrete of NASA, what's the principle. Is it as follows: "In our current context of government taking our money, we should attempt to get the money used for rational rather than irrational uses"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you step back from the specific concrete of NASA, what's the principle. Is it as follows: "In our current context of government taking our money, we should attempt to get the money used for rational rather than irrational uses"

Sure. Wasn't it more rational for Soviet Russia to build hospitals than the gulag?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you support continued US government funding of schools and hospitals? If not, what is the principle that I can use to distinguish between those rational uses and NASA?

I addressed this point yesterday with the roads issue. Should roads ideally be operated by private concerns? Of course. Should government then instantly withdraw its supervision and maintenance of roads? No, such a course of action may be disastrous. The only rational course is to allow for a careful, gradual transition to the free market.

I would have no objection to Boeing or Lockheed-Martin taking over NASA, but there is no indication they have any interest in doing so. In the interim, it is entirely appropriate for Washington to fund the initial colonization of space, a project that is critical to our survival as a nation and as a species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're advocating a careful, gradual transition of NASA to a free-market we have no disagreement. If you're cheering in your own mind that the money is spent on one thing rather than another, we have no disagreement. However, if you're suggesting NASA gets a single dollar more than it does today, or if you're advocating for NASA without a disclaimer that it should be whittled down, then we disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're advocating a careful, gradual transition of NASA to a free-market we have no disagreement. If you're cheering in your own mind that the money is spent on one thing rather than another, we have no disagreement. However, if you're suggesting NASA gets a single dollar more than it does today, or if you're advocating for NASA without a disclaimer that it should be whittled down, then we disagree.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I agree with Ayn Rand:

"We do not have to have a mixed economy, we still have a chance to change our course and thus to survive. But if we do continue down the road of a mixed economy, then let them pour all the millions and billions they can into the space program." ("Apollo 11,"
The Objectivist
, Sept. 1969)

As I said previously, our economy is even more mixed than it was in 1969. It's time to give NASA $500 billion to take us to Mars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, that's it. The next time I see an out-of-context Ayn Rand quote as a substitute for an argument, someone is getting banned.

Sir, if I have not done Ayn Rand justice in quoting her, I apologize. "Apollo 11," her essay in defense of NASA is compelling. In order to avoid banishment, I will not quote from the essay any further but simply refer the reader to it to judge for himself.

In any case, we fully agree on the importance of context. My support (and, I think, Rand's support) of NASA rests upon the fact that we do have an economy that is dominated by government, a state of affairs we all concur is anything but ideal. Given that context, and given that it may be some time before we achieve true laissez faire, it is reasonable that we as Objectivists and citizens direct our government to put some of our lifeblood into achievement and science, the very things that rational men hold dear.

I would add that this is not purely an issue of scientific inquiry; the colonization of space is very much a matter of national defense. Whoever dominates the heavens dominates the earth. I hope I may be forgiven for wanting the U.S. government to capture the high ground before another government does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was I talking about government programs that the public did not support? No. You're bringing up unrealistic scenarios that have no bearing on this discussion.

You missed the point. The unlikelihood of my example does not negate the fact that the government DOES have the power to accomplish the unreasonable. I could care less what the public supports because that does not determine what is right or proper. However, the government has the power to do things without respect to whether they serve a legitimate function of government OR whether the public approves.

Reason makes right, not might.

Your argument remains fallacious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have no objection to Boeing or Lockheed-Martin taking over NASA, but there is no indication they have any interest in doing so. In the interim, it is entirely appropriate for Washington to fund the initial colonization of space, a project that is critical to our survival as a nation and as a species.

Actually the company United Space Alliance was put together from parts of Lockheed, and Boeing to manage the Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle is operated by a private company. Granted their money comes from the government though.

Edited by DrBaltar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the point. The unlikelihood of my example does not negate the fact that the government DOES have the power to accomplish the unreasonable. I could care less what the public supports because that does not determine what is right or proper.
If you'd like to continue with your off-topic hypothetical scenario, that's up to you. The degree to which you care about public support does nothing to my argument.

However, the government has the power to do things without respect to whether they serve a legitimate function of government OR whether the public approves.
Since the issue of manned space flight is supported by the majority of the public I will not lend anymore credibility to your argument other than to say you are off topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA, if properly funded, will give you and your children a future. Remember, there was an exponential growth of freedom when the New World was opened up to Europeans. For three centuries, men were able to enjoy a life free of tyranny, an existence not known since ancient Greece. Sadly, as population density in the Western Hemisphere increased, so did the authority of government. In 2006, to what corner of earth can men yearning to be free turn? The only place is upward.

In 2006 there are many corners of the earth that have yet to be inhabited. The rate at which food production is growing is faster than the rate at which population is growing, and the earth is FAR from reaching is population capacity. Maybe by the time we will be able to colonize the moon or mars we will be able to build cities on the water. Space colonization is just too far away to be able to accurately predict the consequences. And when there is a demand for people to go to space, which will occur long before the world runs out of room, a private industry will develop much faster than NASA has. Even if NASA can give my children a future, do I want them to do it? I trust the laws of demand to provide an adequate solution better than I trust the government.

Now, you may object that government will be the very agency conducting the conquest of the space frontier. But that is no different than the American experience. Virtually every great expedition in the New World, from Columbus to Lewis and Clark, was government-funded. NASA is just a stepping stone. The first colony on Mars with be built with tax funds. But cities, factories, mines and farms will follow, built the same way Hank Rearden built his steel mill.

Even if every great expedition was government funded, does that justify them? The exception makes the rule; by giving the government an exemption from respecting the rights of its citizens to keep their money, you are renouncing the principle entirely.

As for suicide, yes, any time, a nation allows the public sector to grow unabated, it is doomed. The U.S. is more socialistic now than at any time in its history, including the administration of FDR. With every year comes another giveaway program (prescription drug coverage). With every year comes the persecution of an individual for being productive (Martha Stewart).

Tell me why I should be hopeful about current trends.

While I disagree with you, let's leave the focus on the space program for now. For now I will say that there is a difference between not being hopeful about current treads, and acknowledging suicide.

EDIT: Not sure why, but the quotes aren't working properly. Can anyone help me out?

Done: (You had one extra close-quote.) - sNerd

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[1.] In 2006 there are many corners of the earth that have yet to be inhabited. The rate at which food production is growing is faster than the rate at which population is growing, and the earth is FAR from reaching is population capacity. Maybe by the time we will be able to colonize the moon or mars we will be able to build cities on the water.

[2. ] Space colonization is just too far away to be able to accurately predict the consequences. And when there is a demand for people to go to space, which will occur long before the world runs out of room, a private industry will develop much faster than NASA has.

1. When I said that space colonization was critical to mankind's future, I was not referring to running out of food or land or energy or any other physical resource. I specifically mentioned freedom as the issue. Suppose there had been no European discovery of the New World in the 15th century. Mankind would in all likelihood have puttered along, surviving the occasional war, pogrom, plague and famine. What it would not have enjoyed is the spectacular increase in individual freedom that came as a result of making vast tracts of sparsely populated land available to those willing to settle there. The very same expansion of liberty will occur once humans are able to move in significant numbers to other parts of our solar system.

2. Well, there was no private sector demand for Columbus to sail west in 1492. But as a result of a government subsidy, he opened the door for millions of Europeans to increase their personal wealth and control over their own lives by emigrating to the Americas. Furthermore, it is completely inappropriate to say that national defense must await a commercial demand. Defense is the unique province of government. And a U.S. presence on the moon and on Mars is vital for that defense. (See my previous posts on this thread on this issue.)

[3.] Even if NASA can give my children a future, do I want them to do it? I trust the laws of demand to provide an adequate solution better than I trust the government.

[4.] Even if every great expedition was government funded, does that justify them? The exception makes the rule; by giving the government an exemption from respecting the rights of its citizens to keep their money, you are renouncing the principle entirely.

3. Do you trust the laws of demand to provide you with a B1 bomber or a cruise missile or an NSA? Congressional funding of space exploration and colonization is no different. There are certain essential, life- and rights-protecting services that the market alone will not provide.

4. As I have said repeatedly on this thread, this is not a debate about the voluntary funding of government. If every government project must be morally judged by how it is funded, then we’d have to call our absolutely essential War on Terrorism an attack on “the rights of its citizens to keep their money.” I’ve vowed no longer to quote from Ayn Rand’s essay “Apollo 11,” but she makes it clear in that essential work that it is proper to judge a government project apart from the way it is financed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The degree to which you care about public support does nothing to my argument.

Since the issue of manned space flight is supported by the majority of the public I will not lend anymore credibility to your argument other than to say you are off topic.

As I had said before, manned spaceflight is supported by 73% of the American population. Based on those numbers, funding for Nasa should be much higher than it is now. Economically, private industry could not support the number of people in the government run space organization. And scientific purposes do not pay the bills.

The later quote above is what establishes the relevance of my argument.

What destroys you argument is that you think public support = the right thing to do; in short, might makes right. I've identified the fallacy you are committing so either through ignorance or intention, you are evading addressing that fact.

Now maybe if you say off-topic a couple more times it will make it so, but I doubt it. Analogy and example standard tools used all the time in argumentation and discussion. The principle of the example I gave is indeed relevant.

I'll make this simple for you; do you think involuntary taxation is morally just? Do you think taking money involuntarily from people is morally justified by a majority vote or by a "good" cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. It is also my opinion, not a given fact, that if I eat right and exercise regularly I'll live longer.

Okay, now you have established that you have at least two opinions. This does nothing to bolster the validity of your opinions.

Yes, some of the early American colonies, Massachusetts, for example, had authoritarian governments....
Your argument is, they couldn't do it 100 years ago, so they won't be able to do it 100 years from now. This would only be correct IF we assumed the government hasn't learned anything about the control of money and or taxation in the last 100 years, and that they won't learn anything more about in the next 100. This is an exceedingly weak argument, at best.

Perhaps it would have been better if the Spanish crown had not financed Columbus's voyage to the New World and Europe had waited . . . what? Years? Decades? . . .

It's not fruitful to engage in "what if the past were different" scenarios as they have no reflection on the reality of today.

Whether or not you feel guilty about the things that happened yesterday has nothing to do what you should feel or think today or with the effort you should put forth to address the injustices of today and tomorrow. Your argument here is, we did it yesterday so we should continue doing it today.

As I have said previously on this thread, no one is questioning the principle that all government financing should be voluntary...

Good, stop giving the government the sanction of the victim then. Past that, softwareNerd and GreedyCapitalist already addressed this well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but this is not a given fact. This is your opinion. [...]

Well said, I agree with everything you wrote.

I have been fairly anti-NASA for some years now. What's more, everybody that I know who used to do work for NASA, including a still practicing aerospace engineer, has antipathy towards the organization. I understand how somebody can admire the activity itself, but the organization, and the philosophy that backs it, is just plain corrupt. It is totally the fallacy of the broken window to suppose that private organizations would ignore space had it not been for NASA. Count up the money taken by the U.S. government every year and imagine that it had been available in private hands over the entire economy - and subtract the omnipresent chilling influence of a well funded government competitor with a boatland of regulations on its side as well - and then dare to suggest that the resources would not have existed for private entities to have formed orbiting hotels and moon bases by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...