|
What is the Objectivist stance on the moon landing and project Apollo? I know even AR had a bit of a mixed message on it: on one hand I think she abhorred the idea of government projects funded by taxpayers that stepped outside the "proper" roles of government. On the other hand, it was clear to see that she really admired the Apollo astronauts and the tour de force of American ingenuity that Apollo represented. What do you think of large projects like Apollo that had very little to do with capitalist profit and were done for [what I would contend is one of the most dangerous] statist motivations: national prestige? Would man have landed on the moon if it were not for "public good" programs like Apollo ? Would objectivists prefer that man have restricted himself to the purely profitable ventures in space like, perhaps satellite communications and maybe defense-related projects like GPS? Aside: it is really encouraging to see companies like Scaled Composites and SpaceX creating a space business in front of our eyes so perhaps we will see the answer to my question in our own time although I think these companies are thinking about orbital space vs. deep space. |
|
Praise the technical achievement and bravery; condemn the government involvement. It's really that simple. As much as many of us look to the Apollo missions as examples of heroic ingenuity and courage, we should also recognize the immense violation of property rights and waste of capital that the Apollo missions represent. Yes, some practical inventions came out of the space program (not Teflon, actually) -- whenever a difficult problem is solved, there are many sub-problems which get solved the solutions of which may find another application. But this is not an excuse to commit untold private wealth to a goal which private industry would not yet rationally choose to pursue. Because NASA existed, many unseen great and useful things did not come into existence which would have. People always focus on the technical benefit of NASA, ignoring its drain on industry. Now that NASA is gone, we are finally seeing companies like Virgin Galactic come into existence. Without NASA, however, these companies would have been on the scene sooner. Some may argue that NASA set an example of the possible, leading the way for private space flight. I disagree. Private industry does not first need an example funded by confiscation. It only needs confidence that government will not impede private progress, or confiscate capital. It's like public schooling. While government schools exist, confiscating capital and drawing away customers who would otherwise pay for a quality product, private schools languish. Government programs are wasteful. Private industry survives by its own efficiency. But still, there are those who argue: "Government funding can achieve things which private industry cannot." That's because government literally has a license to steal, while private industry must earn its capital by demonstrating the value (i.e. profitability) of every business venture. Just remember that everything that government "achieves" is at the expense of a greater amount of private achievement. Rushing a technical advancement by means of government funding does to an economy what a war does: it forces people to specialize in the government's priority, at the expense of what would be their own ambitions. And when the war is over, everyone must adjust, and rediscover his own priorities -- i.e. find a personal, profitable, peacetime economic goal. Do not celebrate the power of collective funding. Mourn, instead, the unborn private greatness which NASA has prevented. "Would Objectivists prefer that man have restricted himself to the purely profitable ventures in space . . ." "Restricted," here, is a poorly chosen word. The restriction goes in the exact reverse direction: forced funding of NASA constituted a genuine restriction on private ambition. To imply that NASA "freed" man to pursue a non-profit space venture is to give freedom a bad name. Thanks. Nicely said ! I am really excited by Elon Musk's SpaceX and the other small, hopeful entrepreneurial ventures that have sprung up. It is clear if you read accounts of the Space Shuttle disasters just how horrendously managed NASA is/was. Yes nicely said. But I am not 100% convinced a rational case could not be put forward that the moon landing was not a reasonable response to legitimate security concerns at the time and hence a legitimate government concern. You have a triple negative there, meaning "A rational case might be put forward that the moon landing was not a reasonable response to legitimate security concerns . . ." . That's exactly my point, but I think you mean the reverse. Defense expenditures should be spent on defense, not on ways to achieve national prestige. If the U.S. needs a new weapon, or an armed space station, then sure. But only if a good military case could be made for landing on the moon would I support it as a government endeavor.
showing 2 of 3
show all
|
It is important to note that Apollo and the moon landing be viewed in the context of the space race, and arms race with the Soviets. Ayn Rand thought that the arms race was something we "dare not" fall behind on. It is in this context that she praised Apollo.
OK. The problem is that the government can easily "wrap" major projects in "defense" in order to justify them. Even the Interstate Highway system was for "national defense". The TSA is "defense" oriented. So is citizen surveillance. Pretty soon, we may hear that medicaid is also for "national defense" :-)