Daedalus

I have no quarrel with your idea of vaporizing our enemies. Certainly more of this is in order. Nonetheless, as Dr. Peikoff has pointed out, "This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation. But nothing less will 'end the state' that most cries out to be ended." Bombs are not enough. The Muslim meme must be replaced with a rational meme.

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.

I don't think we have a profound disagreement. We both believe that there needs to be a decisive use of force to effectuate a total military victory -- and that in the process there is bound to be considerable bloodshed, including loss of "innocent" lives. Our difference centers on how best to consolidate that victory, namely what role our government should play in overhauling the ideological foundations of the culture in the Middle East. I would have no objection to leaving this to the private sector. However, the enormous number of non-government personnel that are necessary to make this work are simply not on the scene. Just as it fell to the U.S. Army to get rid of Nazi books, newspapers, museums, organizations and emblems -- so no one but our own military is in a position in Iraq to get rid of the mullahs, the madrasas, the fanatical journals, the insidious religious texts and the places of worship where murder is cultivated. Let our military clean house over there. And then the vacuum must be filled. The masses need to be provided with a proper philosophy to take the place of the medieval nonsense they been following ever since they entered this world. As I said earler, Dr. Peikoff's The Art of Thinking would be an excellent starting point. This could be followed up by having the public read some of Ayn Rand's novels -- or, if they are illiterate, listen to them on tape.

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

Perhaps it was not the government's job in Germany and Austria, post-World War II, to remove swastikas from buildings and Nazi books from libraries, to close Nazi newspapers, and to ban the Nazi Party. But that is precisely what the Allied forces did in the ruins of the Third Reich. Who else was there to do it? The Red Cross? Imagine the consequences of defeating the Nazi war machine -- and then doing nothing about correcting the ideology that produced it. Going to war with Germany every 20 years is not my idea of sanity. We will never win in Iraq or in any other Muslim country unless we get rid of the hateful mindset that produces the fanatics.

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. 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. 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.

The exploration and colonization of space is a critical part of our national defense. Any country occupying the moon has the capability of exerting a death grip on Planet Earth. I say, better a U.S. government-controlled moon than a Chinese or Russian or Saudi moon. Moreover, there are compelling reasons why establishing bases on Mars is critical to our survival. A meteor, asteroid or comet on a collision course with earth is a very real possibility. Having stations in the outer reaches of the solar system is essential as a means of early detection and intervention. Tell me, how effective is your limited government going to be at protecting your rights when the entire continent is toast?

Returning to the moon is not just a key component of a Mars mission -- it is a vital priority in itself. The conquest and occupation of the moon is essential to our national defense. Anyone who has read Roberft Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is aware of the threat a moon-based power could pose to countries on earth. We need to seize the moon, declare a Monroe Doctrine of space -- and be prepared to enforce it with all our might. Secondarily, the moon will provide a valuable training ground and staging area for future planetary exploration.

Dr. Peikoff wrote that our war with the terrorists "is a clash of cultures, and thus a struggle of ideas, which can be dealt with, ultimately, only by intellectual means." What good will it do to defeat the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran and then announce, "We respect your religion, your values, your way of doing business." This would be the same as defeating the German army and then announcing, "We have no quarrel with the Nazi philosophy. It is not our role to convert you from a ideology of mass murder." Peikoff is right. There must be a massive program of de-Muslimization. The future of civilization is at stake.

For some, that might be an appropriate syllabus. However, I'd put my money on The Art of Thinking, a 14-hour discussion by Dr. Leonard Peikoff on CD. Of course, currently this lecture series is available only in English, but I'm sure we could find some Arab to translate it and record it. No, I don't think anyone should be tied up while they are listening to it. But I do think they should be given pop quizzes to make sure they were paying attention and not drifting off as a lot of youngsters do in school today.

Ayn Rand did not deny that stolen money was used to put Americans on the moon. Nor, for that matter, would she have denied that stolen money was used to finance that other triumph of the intellect, the Manhattan Project and the atom bomb. Ideally, no one should have to pay against his will for any part of the federal budget. But, like it or not, virtually every dollar in the U.S. Treasury is there by means of coercion. Given that under the current semi-statist regime, those dollars are not going to get back to their proper owners, we Objectivists can counsel our leaders on how best to spend them. Ayn Rand said, "Of all our government programs, the space program is the cleanest and best: it, at least, has brought the American citizens a return on their forced investment, it has worked for its money, it has earned its keep; which cannot be said about any other program of the government." For me, the dividends paid, physically and spiritually, have been enormous.

History shows that a strong leader can overcome initial resistance and make a people follow him to glory. No, I don't think Bush has it in him to command the nation. But the possibilities don't start and end with the incumbent. In any case, we cannot afford to wait for western culture by itself to convert the Islamic world to reason. We need boots on the ground. As Dr. Peikoff says, "It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation." The U.S. Army better crank up the enlistment machine. We are going to need millions of uniformed Americans occupying territory from the Mediterranean Sea to the Hindu Kush. And they're going to need lots of training and lots of body armor.

As long as we have a mixed economy, we must make sure that the best within us is not destroyed. So if we are going to support the parasites, the moochers, and "pour more money down the sewers of the war on poverty," we must make sure that the Men of the Mind are not forgotten. Soviet Russia was a landscape of horror, but think how much worse it would have been had the dictators not identified the brightest children and put them on a higher educational track in science, music, dance etc. You mentioned roads. If you could push a button that would instantly end all government (federal, state, local) maintenance and administration of roads, would you? Who would pave them? Fix broken stop lights? Enforce traffic laws? Like Ayn Rand, I see nothing wrong in acknowledging that we have a mixed economy and that as long as we do, there are better and worse ways for the government to spend coerced funds. I'm sorry that you disagree with Ayn Rand. However, I'm not even sure that you undertand her position. Your statement "Socialism isn't good just because it's done by the US" indicates that you haven't even grasped her argument. If it's any consolation, you're not alone. I've encountered dozens of people over the years who have read Ayn Rand and didn't "get" her.

You make an excellent point. So far, we have focused only on the military defeat of our enemies in the Middle East. But that is not enough. One Muslim fanatic killed by our forces will only be replaced with another. Therefore, our War on Terrorism must also include a ideological component. We must defeat our foes both physically and philosophically. As Leonard Peikoff explains: "Eliminating Iran's terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation. But nothing less will "end the state" that most cries out to be ended." http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635 Therefore in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran -- and wherever else our troops go -- we must have a vigorous de-Muslimization program. Our troops should become experts not just in throwing grenades but in converting the people of the Middle East to rationality. Every citizen of the countries we occupy should be required to undergo de-Muslimization. In this way we can effect a permanent end to Terrorism.

No one here is arguing against the idea of voluntary financing of government. That is not the crux of the debate. Once we achieve true laissez faire, perhaps space exploration will be handled entirely by private corporations. But today we are quite some distance from that ideal society. We have to do business with the government we have, which is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. In a completely free society, no one would be forced to contribute to national defense. However, in today's world, we have no choice but to use the resources of the federal treasury (gained almost entirely by coercion) to fight terrorism, fund courts, patrol our borders, print money etc. It is also appropriate in a mixed society to use some of the coerced funds to go to the moon and Mars. In this way we can ensure that "If the United States is to commit suicide, let it not be for the sake and support of the worst human elements, the parasites-on-principle, at home and abroad."

Say what you want, but Rand was not engaging in the strawman fallacy. There are few human beings in whom the quality of rationality was so pronounced. Rand never allowed her judgment to be affected by anything other than a relentless search for the truth. Rand's statements about the War on Poverty were unerringly accurate. LBJ's Great Society -- that federal crusade for coerced egalitarianism -- did indeed include a largesse of historic proportions for special education. Federal intervention in schools was billed as a way to short circuit the endless cycle of poverty. (In no way was this largesse moderated during the Nixon era.) And it was right and proper for Rand to mention the ambitions of our scientists and astronauts. Rand's entire life was dedicated to celebrating and protecting the rational men and women of this world from the the envious, the incompetent and the slothful. The idea of our Apollo heroes being reduced to carrying bedpans is one for the Horror File indeed.

For those who must take everything literally, I'll revise my statement: NASA took American citizens to the moon. You are entitled to your opinion, but as Ayn Rand said, the money spent on the space program went to the "support of achievement and the progress of science." The space pen and Tang breakfast drink are just two of the many marvelous developments brought about by "our" (pardon the pronoun) landing on the moon. As for spending the money on welfare instead of the exploration of space, I'll let Ayn Rand answer you: "Those who suggest that we substitute a war on poverty for the space program, should ask themselves whether the premises and values that form the character of an astronaut would be satisfied by a lifetime of carrying bedpans and teaching the alphabet to the mentally retarded. The answer applies as well to the values and premises of the astronauts' admirers. Slums are not a substitute for stars." ("Apollo 11," The Objectivist, September, 1969) If "clown" is your idea of what the pilot of the first spacecraft to another planet is, then you have much to learn about Objectivism. As for the end not justifying the means, no one here is aguing against making funding of government voluntary. But as long as we have a mixed economy is is appropriate to try to get millions and billions more into the space program. As Rand said, "The American flag on the moon—or on Mars, or on Jupiter—will, at least, be a worthy monument to what had once been a great country."

Could you provide some examples of laws in the U.S. similar to the Austrian law under discussion? Certainly there are rules on campuses against "hate speech," but that is in the context of a tax-supported institution. There is no state or federal law that I know of that allows for the imprisonment of an individual for making certain historical claims. Communist regimes are responsible for the deaths of many millions more than Hitler killed. Would you then favor banning the sale of books by Marx, Lenin and Trotsky? Since the protective laws you defend are put in place by elected leaders, isn't there a danger in giving the "below-average intelligence" "sheep" you speak of the right to vote?

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but I agree with Ayn Rand. In defending NASA's landing of men on the moon Rand wrote, "In judging the effectiveness of the various elements involved in any large-scale undertaking of a mixed economy, one must be guided by the question: which elements were the result of coercion and which the result of freedom? It is not coercion, not the physical force or threat of a gun, that created Apollo 11. The scientists, the technologists, the engineers, the astronauts were free men acting of their own choice. The various parts of the spacecraft were produced by private industrial concerns. Of all human activities, science is the field least amenable to force: the facts of reality do not take orders." ("Apollo 11," The Objectivist, September 1969) Given that our economy is even more mixed than it was in 1969, it is entirely appropriate for Objectivists to support a robust federal space program, just as Ayn Rand did in her lifetime. Yes, I agree that we also need to spend more money on taking out Islamist regimes. But why must this be either/or? In the 1960s the United States was able to land a man on the moon and outspend (and eventually) defeat the Soviet Union. Accordingly, there is no reason why we can't have both a successful Manned Mission to Mars and a winning War on Terrorism. Furthermore, there are valid military reasons to seize the high ground in space. Any nation with permanent bases on the moon is in a unique position to exert military dominance over the earth. Because of its low gravity, the moon provides an ideal launching pad for earth-bound missiles. Sure, we can wait . . . and wait . . . for private industry to colonize the moon, but what if the governments of Russia, China or Saudi Arabia get there first? Pardon my patriotism, but I want us to be first. And as for Mars, what a perfect place for a missile base to guard against asteroids, meteors and comets that may collide with the earth. Zapping them before they hit us is national defense of the highest order. Now, it you think it should be the Air Force, not NASA, doing this, fine. I really don’t care what emblem the Mars lander has, just as long as there’s an American flag and a support our troops ribbon in it. Sure, it’s possible that some technologies were passed by in the rush to get an American on the moon. But to be honest, I don’t care. The rocket science that came out of the Apollo program was invaluable in developing more sophisticated American weapons systems. As a patriot, I’d much rather have better weapons than better household appliances. As for NASA being in the doldrums, we can hardly blame the agency for Congress’s lack of funding. Keep in mind that before World War II, the U.S, military was also pathetically weak for the same reason: politicians had criminally neglected it. However, within a single decade, America acquired the greatest fighting force on earth -- and it remains so to this day. We can do the same thing with our space program. Of course, I have no objection to private entrepreneurs going to the moon or Mars, but there is nothing on the horizon to indicate any such thing will happen. Like Columbus’s voyage to American, like the Louisiana Purchase, like the Transcontinental Railroad, like the Panama Canal, sometimes you need government to perform tasks that private industry cannot do on its own. With any large project, there are bound to be worthless bureaucrats and corrupt contractors. According to a 2003 GAO report, the Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. But nobody should conclude from that that we don't have a good army. As Secretary Rumsfeld says, "You go to war with the army you have." For all its problems, NASA is the agency that will take us to Mars. As Ayn Rand wrote, “Of all our government programs, the space program is the cleanest and best.”

It is extremely unlikely. Russia under the Soviets usually backed down from an American show of strength during the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis being the best example. The current regime in Moscow is composed of ex-Reds and conforms in most ways to that pusillanimous mindset. All Bush would have to do is issue a nuclear-tipped threat, and you'd see Putin & Co. beating a fast retreat. Of course, if the Russians didn't back down, Bush would have no choice but to issue a launch order. (Failure to follow through on a threat means loss of face, i.e. losing the power to induce fear in one's enemies in the future.) But even if things go nuclear, it's hardly what the Doomsday liberals call the End of the World. Sure, the Russians could destroy a few American cities, but we would already have wiped out most of their major population centers -- as well as neutralize their missile forces within a few hours. They would have to cry "uncle" not more than two days from the start of hostilities. What I'm saying is: we don't have to worry about offending the Russians, the Saudis, the Chinese, the Pakis, the Indians or anyone else. We've got the muscle to enforce our will. Why act like a Helpless Giant?

You get the benefit of knowing that some of your lifeblood went to the "support of achievement and the progress of science." Of course, it would be wonderful if we lived under laissez faire and the private sector did it all. But we don't. I agree with Ayn Rand. As long as we "continue down the road of a mixed economy, then let them pour all the millions and billions they can into the space program." The more, the better, I say.

Well, I think it can be morally appropriate for the government to fund a space program. As Ayn Rand wrote, a taxpayer financed NASA is not proper "except insofar as space projects involve military aspects, in which case, and to that extent, it is not merely proper, but mandatory." I for one believe that placing colonies on the moon and Mars can have enormous military benefits, in terms of capturing strategic high ground and fostering techological fallout. Nor do I believe that MMM is a PR stunt -- any more than the Apollo Program was. Funding and technology? There were not enough funds and know-how when Kennedy first announced we were going to the moon. But over the next eight years the means came into existence, and on July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong touched the lunar sands. As for "purpose," what was the purpose of going to the moon? Ayn Rand could tell you: "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. If the United States is to commit suicide, let it not be for the sake and support of the worst human elements, the parasites-on-principle, at home and abroad. Let it not be its only epitaph that it died paying its enemies for its own destruction. Let some of its lifeblood go to the support of achievement and the progress of science. The American flag on the moon—or on Mars, or on Jupiter—will, at least, be a worthy monument to what had once been a great country." Ayn Rand, "Apollo 11," The Objectivist, Sept., 1969

"The discoveries in one branch of knowledge lead to unexpected discoveries in another; the achievements in one field open countless roads in all the others. The space exploration program, for instance, has led to invaluable advances in medicine. Who can predict when, where or how a given bit of information will strike an active mind and what it will produce?" Ayn Rand, The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, p. 286 I know that many Objectivists share my enthusiasm for the Manned Mission to Mars (MMM) that President Bush announced in 2004. In this heroic endeavor a crew of U.S. astronauts will journey to Mars and back over a period of 500 days. It is a daring risk, but one that we must take. Not only will it provide a jaded world with a vision of man at his best, it will inevitably yield a bonanza of technological advances as a byproduct. An overview of the project can be found at http://www.marsnews.com/missions/humans_to_mars/ The Wikipedia has an excellent summary of the plans for Crew Exploration Vehicle, the next generation of U.S. spacecraft, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle

Conservatives are not necessarily lunatics, but at the same time they are hardly exemplars of reason. For example, Ayn Rand said the Conservative Party of New York, "subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism." (The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7, January 3, 1972, "What Can One Do?") Rand also approvingly quoted her friend Isabel Paterson: "If you hear some bad collectivistic notions, chances are that they came from liberals. But if you hear or read something outrageously, god-awfully collectivistic, you may be sure that the author is a conservative." As for the media calling theocratic leaders of Iran "conservative," why not? Clearly it is the conservatives, not the liberals, who are trying to move the U.S. closer to theocracy. As Ayn Rand said, "Sensing their need of a moral base, many 'conservatives' decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God." (Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, p. 197) My understanding is that David Irving regards himself as a conservative, and so it would not be misleading for the media to characterize him as such.