Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is it ethical to work for NASA?

Rate this topic


GoodOrigamiMan

Recommended Posts

I'm going to Drexel and wanted to do an internship for JPL (which is run by NASA). In this context I would be working for taxed money. Even though I do not advocate taxation and consider myself a ‘victim,’ would I be sanctioning taxation by accepting taxed money in return for my services? Is it ethical to trade with someone who has no right to the value they are trading for your value? In other words, if someone takes something from you is it ethical to work for them to get it back? I think the answer is ‘no’ so I haven’t gone thru with trying to get a job there, however I’d like to double check because other than the ethical issue it would be a great place to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to Drexel and wanted to do an internship for JPL (which is run by NASA).  In this context I would be working for taxed money.  Even though I do not advocate taxation and consider myself a ‘victim,’ would I be sanctioning taxation by accepting taxed money in return for my services?  Is it ethical to trade with someone who has no right to the value they are trading for your value?  In other words, if someone takes something from you is it ethical to work for them to get it back?  I think the answer is ‘no’ so I haven’t gone thru with trying to get a job there, however I’d like to double check because other than the ethical issue it would be a great place to work.

As you describe them your intentions are very much an act of self-sacrifice. You are not responsible for the world into which you were born. The government has appropriated much of scientific research and there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting a government-sponsored job as long as you do not advocate in principle the correctness of the taxation and nonobjective laws which makes government appropriation of science possible in the first place. You should read Ayn Rand's article The Question Of Scholarships in the June 1966 issue of The Objectivist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve recently come to the conclusion that the space shuttle, space station, and most other NASA programs are wasteful and incompetent government boondoggles that would have no private analog, and accomplish very little relative to what that wealth could have done in private hands. No matter how “market-friendly” NASA tries to become, the impossibility of socialist calculation guarantees that nothing short of privatization could change that.

Having said that, working for NASA is ethical – as long as there are no viable private alternatives. Even then, I would accept lower pay, less job security, and less opportunities to work in private industry. It’s not just a matter of making your living from stolen funds – private industry is likely to have much more exciting projects than a politicized bureaucracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've spent my career to date working in optical engineering for the company that produced the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra Observatory, and has been involved in a several other major NASA contracts. Our primary market is the US Defense Department (along with some foreign militaries).

My understanding of the ethics of working in such an environment is along the lines that Stephen has mentioned above - this is a pre-existing condition of the country, and that my rational self-interest is best served by producing in an environment in which I excel.

That being said, as I have risen to a level of importance in my company, I have not been silent about my views on NASA contracts, and on NASA's very existence. At every relevant occasion, particularly during the quotation process, I have pointed out that performing large contracts for NASA never makes good business sense.

NASA has no interest in providing a company with a profit. Typically the larger contracts are of the "cost plus fixed fee" variety, meaning that NASA will pay whatever it costs to produce the system, plus a profit "fee" (of about 15%). During the quotation process, competitors produce bids on what they expect the contract to cost. However, what ends up happening in reality is that the job is given to a bidder who bids well below the actual cost, and although this is technically illegal, it is typically done with both NASA and the vendor fully aware of the shortfall. Then, as the contractor runs into trouble with meeting the bid, a negotiation begins in which the company supports the contract with internal funds (usually indirectly to avoid more illegalities), while NASA pays a portion of the cost growth. By the end of the contract, the contractor is lucky to have broken even. The only "profit" obtained is the ability to use the involvement with NASA as a marketing tool. In my opinion (particularly with the Hubble) this is a very questionable benefit.

It is quite notable that in our Defense contracts, of which the larger, more exploratory contracts are also cost-plus fixed fee, the customer always delivers funding covering both the full cost and the fee, and quotes are typically much more honest. I have always seen this dichotomy between NASA and Defense as a mark of their legitimacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you describe them your intentions are very much an act of self-sacrifice. You are not responsible for the world into which you were born. The government has appropriated much of scientific research and there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting a government-sponsored job as long as you do not advocate in principle the correctness of the taxation and nonobjective laws which makes government appropriation of science possible in the first place. You should read Ayn Rand's article The Question Of Scholarships in the June 1966 issue of The Objectivist.

I agree with the above, but I still can't resolve the following. If I ever want to see NASA and the work that they do privitized, how would doing good work for them and thus adding to their reputation achieve that goal?

If you are correct, then you must see differences between working for NASA and Robert Stadler working for the State Science Institute in Atlas Shrugged. Or is it only Stadler's attitute toward the issue the root of his immorality? If he would have advocated privitization would his actions have been morally acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stadler founded the SSI and therefore was the one trying to appropriate the money from taxpayers in the first place (with the help of the government).

However I think Steven's point is that the deed of the theif does not pass to you. If you accept a job with that company you are not the one doing the stealing, the theft has already been committed and there are clear victims and criminals. It cannot be unethical for you so long as you oppose taxation. However this means that if the chance came to get rid of taxation, you would take it even if it meant the end of that job.

The government is the thief and the organization is the one accepting unearned money. You would be a worker accepting money earned from the company, where the company gets it's money is the company's problem and if they are immoral in doing so they must pay for it, not you. The next question is whether you really want to work for people such as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stadler founded the SSI...

O yeah. So never mind about this part of my question.

However I think Steven's point is that the deed of the theif does not pass to you. If you accept a job with that company you are not the one doing the stealing, the theft has already been committed and there are clear victims and criminals. It cannot be unethical for you so long as you oppose taxation. However this means that if the chance came to get rid of taxation, you would take it even if it meant the end of that job.

Makes sense.

But still, arn't you still making it harder for the organization to be privitzed by bolstering its reputation and thus keeping the organization alive and with politicians using any of its successes as an excuse to steal even more money?

Couldn't it be deemed immoral on these grounds? Immoral in the sense that it makes it harder for you to obtain one of your values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the above, but I still can't resolve the following. If I ever want to see NASA and the work that they do privitized, how would doing good work for them and thus adding to their reputation achieve that goal?

Your political goals and your career goals are two separate things. To what extent, if any, the former affects the latter, is a matter of context, both personal and otherwise. For instance, if the work you love -- the work that you have made a lifelong commitment to -- can only be performed at NASA, then I would say that your political goals may need not matter at all, at least in making the choice as to where you work. If, on the other hand, NASA were one of several other choices you had to practice the work you love, then your political goals, your concern about and desire for private enterprise rather than government involvement, would be a factor for you to consider. Likewise, you can devise a million other personal and professional contexts where some mix of these concerns would apply. But, in principle, the focus should always be on your hierarchy of values and should be governed by your rational self-interest. And, as I mentioned previously, you should not accept any guilt or responsibility for the state of the world into which you were born.

If you are correct, then you must see differences between working for NASA and Robert Stadler working for the State Science Institute in Atlas Shrugged.  Or is it only Stadler's attitute toward the issue the root of his immorality?  If he would have advocated privitization would his actions have been morally acceptable?

In regard to Stadler, surely you see the difference between the man who said, when endorsing the State Science Institute, "Set science free of the rule of the dollar," and the kind of person of person we are talking about. Right? And, while we are at it, let me emphasize that the world of Atlas Shrugged is not the world we live in today. We have a long way to go before we reach that level of degradation. And, in that regard, despite the decline of NASA due to politicization, it is hardly the equal of the State Science Institute. Keeping a good perspective matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But still, arn't you still making it harder for the organization to be privitzed by bolstering its reputation and thus keeping the organization alive and with politicians using any of its successes as an excuse to steal even more money?

Couldn't it be deemed immoral on these grounds? Immoral in the sense that it makes it harder for you to obtain one of your values.

Hopefully you will see the answer to this in the post I just made. If not, ask again and perhaps I can try to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your political goals and your career goals are two separate things. To what extent, if any, the former affects the latter, is a matter of context, both personal and otherwise. For instance, if the work you love -- the work that you have made a lifelong commitment to -- can only be performed at NASA, then I would say that your political goals may need not matter at all, at least in making the choice as to where you work.

So, unless your goal to see NASA privitized is higher in your hierarchy of values than your goal to work in the space industry (of which NASA may be the only available option), then you should seek and accept a job in the space industry in the meantime, while continuing to fight for the system to be privitized as well.

I have no problem with this explanation. But what should Alex do, since I don't think a job in the space industry is a top priority for him, rather it is just a cool job that he would enjoy as a co-op intern. Does the answer depend on his value-hierarchy and how these two goals, privatized NASA vs. internship at NASA, face off against eachother in his hierarchy. A question only Alex can answer I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what should Alex do, since I don't think a job in the space industry is a top priority for him, rather it is just a cool job that he would enjoy as a co-op intern.  Does the answer depend on his value-hierarchy and how these two goals, privatized NASA vs. internship at NASA, face off against eachother in his hierarchy.  A question only Alex can answer I suppose.

Also, I would caution you (and Alex) not to over-dramatize what is at stake here. Working for a group whose purpose is the exploration of space is certainly much different than working for, for instance, the IRS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, working for NASA is ethical – as long as there are no viable private alternatives.  Even then, I would accept lower pay, less job security, and less opportunities to work in private industry.  It’s not just a matter of making your living from stolen funds – private industry is likely to have much more exciting projects than a politicized bureaucracy.

You may be right about the more exciting projects in private industry, but I would generally say that in this case one should separate his own immediate interests from his ideology. If NASA offers a better job at a better salary - choose it according to these criteria alone. Don't try to include ideology in your calculations.

If government intervention created a situation that the best job in a certain field is governmental - it's not your fault and not your responsibility. Take the best job for you in terms of interest, fulfillment, salary - whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point taken. Thank you.

You're welcome, Andrew.

I would like to suggest that you read Ayn Rand's tribute to Apollo 11 which appeared in the September 1969 issue of The Objectivist. Miss Rand was present at the Apollo 11 launch and, in my view, this article is one of the most inspirational of her writings. Relevant to our discussion, here is the final paragraph from her article.

"As far as 'national priorities' are concerned, I want to say the following: 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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you describe them your intentions are very much an act of self-sacrifice. You are not responsible for the world into which you were born. The government has appropriated much of scientific research and there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting a government-sponsored job as long as you do not advocate in principle the correctness of the taxation and nonobjective laws which makes government appropriation of science possible in the first place. You should read Ayn Rand's article The Question Of Scholarships in the June 1966 issue of The Objectivist.

But this logic could also apply to the welfare case worker. We could say: since the government has appropriated much of the nation's charity work, there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting employment as a government social worker as long as you do not advocate in principle the correctness of the taxation and nonobjective laws which makes government appropriation of charity possible in the first place.

More fundamentally, how does the fact that the government became involved in a particular industry or profession justify one's getting on the federal payroll? We have no way of knowing, in the absence of our modern, bloated and unconstitutional regime, what direction the free market would have taken. As Greedy Capitalist suggested, it may be that under laissez faire, there would have been "no private analog" to our 40-year space program. Claiming that someone is entitled to a job funded by coercive means on the theory that the job would certainly have existed in the free market sounds very much like a rationalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claiming that someone is entitled to a job funded by coercive means on the theory that the job would certainly have existed in the free market sounds very much like a rationalization.

No one here is claiming that anyone is entitled to a job, Charlotte. This transparent straw man has earned you your third warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one here is claiming that anyone is entitled to a job, Charlotte. This transparent straw man has earned you your third warning.

I'll amend the final sentence for clarity: "Claiming that someone is entitled to accept a job funded by coercive means on the theory that the job would certainly have existed in the free market sounds very much like a rationalization."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll amend the final sentence for clarity: "Claiming that someone is entitled to accept a job funded by coercive means on the theory that the job would certainly have existed in the free market sounds very much like a rationalization."

It's still a straw man. Nobody has claimed that you can accept the job because it would have existed under a free market. The first occurrence of the phrase "free market" (as well as "market") in this thread is in your first post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll amend the final sentence for clarity: "Claiming that someone is entitled to accept a job funded by coercive means on the theory that the job would certainly have existed in the free market sounds very much like a rationalization."

Charlotte, I think you should continue practicing your ability to spot rationalizations. It appears that you don't like people to work for NASA. Should educators also only be willing to work for private schools? Should ARI speakers refuse to speak on the campuses of State Universities?

I recall seeing you write that you refused to sell something to the Park Service, but you have no qualms about dealing with "private" Chinese merchants. Are you aware that virtually every Chinese businessman must pay off Communist Party members with bribes, is the recipient of numerous government-subsidized inputs (e.g. steel, electricity, coal, financing, and much more, in some cases). I'm sure you know that imports/exports get approved by Communist Party officials, and that such positions are great sources of corrupt money. Being a person who is so finicky in her dealings with governments, I'm sure that you do know all about this, and have done all sorts of background checks and hired private investigators to make sure that whatever business you do with China has not provided one RMB nor one bottle of Cognac to Communist Party representatives, and has not benefited one iota from government subsidies, but a lesser person would probably just rationalize all of this away, and ignore the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still a straw man. Nobody has claimed that you can accept the job because it would have existed under a free market. The first occurrence of the phrase "free market" (as well as "market") in this thread is in your first post.

The claim in Post #2 was that "The government has appropriated much of scientific research. . ." From whom, then, was it appropriated? Another government perhaps? But what government would that be? More likely it was not another government that got its research appropriated but the private sector in this country. And what would the private sector be if not the free market?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claim in Post #2 was that "The government has appropriated much of scientific research. . ."

Yes, the claim was that, not "You are entitled to accept the job because it would have existed in the free market." Stephen's explanation for why you can accept the job was:

there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting a government-sponsored job as long as you do not advocate in principle the correctness of the taxation and nonobjective laws which makes government appropriation of science possible in the first place.

He didn't say "You can accept it because it would have existed in the free market." He said that you can accept it because you do not advocate taxation, AS LONG AS you do not advocate taxation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlotte, I think you should continue practicing your ability to spot rationalizations. It appears that you don't like people to work for NASA. Should educators also only be willing to work for private schools? Should ARI speakers refuse to speak on the campuses of State Universities?

ARI speakers may do as they wish. The point of my post was to challenge the idea that because the state has "appropriated" some particular industry, one morally may take a government-paid job in that industry. There may in fact be a very good argument for permitting those who oppose big government to accept government jobs in those areas that the government ideally has no business in. However, that argument has not yet been made on this thread.

I recall seeing you write that you refused to sell something to the Park Service, but you have no qualms about dealing with "private" Chinese merchants. Are you aware that virtually every Chinese businessman must pay off Communist Party members with bribes, is the recipient of numerous government-subsidized inputs (e.g. steel, electricity, coal, financing, and much more, in some cases). I'm sure you know that imports/exports get approved by Communist Party officials, and that such positions are great sources of corrupt money. Being a person who is so finicky in her dealings with governments, I'm sure that you do know all about this, and have done all sorts of background checks and hired private investigators to make sure that whatever business you do with China has not provided one RMB nor one bottle of Cognac to Communist Party representatives, and has not benefited one iota from government subsidies, but a lesser person would probably just rationalize all of this away, and ignore the problem.

I view bribery as no different than payment of taxes -- so long as the objective of the briber is to expand his freedom (or prevent further encroachments on it), rather than to expand the power of government over the peaceful individual. As a U.S. importer of foreign-made goods, I have paid off numerous petty officials in the Third World -- always at their own behest. Call it taxation or bribery, the objective of most bureaucrats is to expand their own power and wealth at the expense of the productive class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the claim was that, not "You are entitled to accept the job because it would have existed in the free market." Stephen's explanation for why you can accept the job was:

He didn't say "You can accept it because it would have existed in the free market." He said that you can accept it because you do not advocate taxation, AS LONG AS you do not advocate taxation.

Then why even mention that "The government has appropriated much of scientific research. . ."? What on earth was that clause doing in a message that defended accepting a government-sponsored job on certain conditions -- if the government’s appropriation of the field has nothing to do with the morality of taking a job in that field? Furthermore, how does the fact that someone does not advocate taxation give him the right to accept coerced funds and government employment in a field that the government has no business in? If the government should not be sending rockets to Mars paid for with stolen loot, no government employee should be doing it, least of all people who theoretically oppose the idea.

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...