Space ‘Triumphs’ (Mars in another light)

Imagine your neighbor throwing a party to show off his brand new high-tech boat – or flower garden or remodeled kitchen. Pick your item and imagine the triumph in your neighbor’s eyes, voice and body language. You would surely be a spoilsport to try to rain on his parade with any kind of negative or derisive comment. What a mean thing that would be! But imagine that you discovered that your neighbor had built his invention by first raiding his other neighbor’s savings account. His fabulous new gizmo no longer looks so fabulous to you and, you conclude, it is quite perverse that it looks fabulous to him. Sure, it is still something of a wonder – what a thing to create, to build. But it cannot be reasonably denied that the means by which the fellow got the thing done, namely, by robbing his other neighbor, cast a very serous cloud over whatever wonderful thing he made that way.

Well, that’s how I see all those fabulous achievements of NASA, including some of the American government’s space exploration. It is actually worse than that. Since most of those who take part in those ventures are completely oblivious to the venality of the means by which their projects get off the ground – how their funding is secured, how it deprives millions of citizens of various amounts of wealth from which they might have produced their own more or less fabulous creations – I am not only appalled at the viciousness of these celebrations but also at the rank moral ignorance of all those who go about the celebration without a clue as to its source.

It would, indeed, be more honest to witness at least some of the folks who come on television to proclaim the wonders of these achievements if they toasted the extortionist scheme that provided them with the funding. At least we would learn that these folks are aware of what they are doing, that they are vicious but not also stupid. Instead, however, they go about their celebrations blithely, as if nothing untoward had been involved in how it all came to be achieved.

I am by no means some kind of Luddite who thinks the great leaps of technology, including space explorations, demonstrate the sin of hubris on part of the human race. No, that ignorant scientists and technologists who can stand and cheer when a brilliant payload lands on Mars and sends back stunning pictures that tell us all kinds of stuff we could make use of. It isn’t even necessary in these cases to produce immediate utilitarian results – the feats in and of themselves, like those of other human adventures, are often sufficient to cause delight for most decent people.

However, when one knows that these feats are produced on the backs of millions of tax payers – folks from whom wealth is confiscated at the point of a gun, ultimately, and who might very well have had vital objectives to pursue with the aid of their wealth and were cruelly deprived of this – there is no way to take part in all the hoopla. In fact, witnessing the morally blind pride exhibited by all those scientists, engineers, and administrators is quite painful. I must deny myself the joy I know I would feel if the accomplishments had not had been fueled by blood money.

But, perhaps I am odd. When I run across the so called marvels of past civilizations in Europe and elsewhere, such as the palaces, cathedrals, pyramids, great walls, and magnificent monuments, I find it difficult not to reflect on the deliberate, utterly avoidable human devastation that it took to get many of these artifacts produced. I always ask myself how things would have gone had all those people who were conscripted to labor on all these wondrous creations had the chance to choose their own projects.

I realize, of course, that they would probably have squandered a good deal of their lives and resources but, then, I recall that their conscripted labor and resources also went to waste a good deal of the time – in the service of wars of conquest, subjugation or confiscation, or of idolatry and frivolity. And then I recall, too, that while perhaps some of these products of forced labor, just as the recent Mars landing of the unmanned space craft, were wonderful and even helpful, we will never know how it would have gone had individuals been left free to determine to what end to devote their own labors and resources.

And, of course, it is also worth keeping in mind that many of the fabulous achievements resulting from conscripted mass labor created environmental destruction, too, which the less grandiose, more modest voluntary projects of individuals and small groups of freely united humans tended to avoid. (Just think of TVA, the Interstate Highway System, the massive canal projects and damns around the globe.)

But, yes, some of these projects are wonderful. They are only made not so by the fact that their creation violated the most elementary principle of civilized human association, freedom of choice.

Tibor Machan [send him mail] holds the Freedom Communications Professorship of Free Enterprise and Business Ethics at the Argyros School of Business & Economics, Chapman University, CA. A Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, he is author of 20+ books, most recently, The Passion for Liberty (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

What's your deal here Occupied? You won't cease whining about NASA. I read your arguments concerning constitutional issues, but your enthusiam for bitching about "rocks and dust" makes no sense. NASA is such a small portion of what you consider illegal spending it doesn't merit the time you give it. I bet if you made a big red circle around everything you don't want to pay for, NASA would probably be the most beneficial to your life of the lot (even though you can't seem to swallow the fact that NASA produces massive benefits to American society).

So what is it? Just like to call NASA likers "liberals" and other ad hominem crap? Shuttle booster accidentally smush your dog? You've got alot bigger fish to fry than NASA if it's taxes you hate to pay.

So now it's not a matter of principle but just a question of whether it's a good idea?

I believe the word "moral" in my question addresses principle. You still haven't given any logical, constitutional, moral (principle) or valid argument that justifies extorting money from the taxpayers at gunpoint to pay for the space program. You just continue to get more boring as you try to weasel around the question. At least some of the other people who thought it was a good idea had reasons.

I have thought about the amount for a long time.

I hereby decree that in order to bring peace to this thread you shall pay for our space exploration in total. In return you will be granted the position of Minister of the Interior to include but not limited to taxing authority over all in your realm of the interior, with exception being assets of the monarchy and his appointed ministers and agents. In addition, you will also have first choice of plunder gained from space exploration so long as you contribute 22.345% of profits gained annually to the Monarchial treasury.

So it is written, let it be law.

Penned by the hand of the American_Centurion this 16th day of January the year of our Lord 2004.

Since you two are so fond of the false straw man argument,...

Straw man argument. Bull. You are the one who demanded specific authorization in the Constitution. In fact the constitutional issue was explicitly raised in connection with the Louisiana Purchase and was specifically addressed by none other than President Thomas Jefferson the drafter of the Declaration of Independance. Heis position was that the benefits of such a purchase far outweighed an possible constitutional violation.

Thus it is hardly a straw man argument. It represents the fundemental dispute regarding exactly what the role of the federal government should be. Further it demonstrates that the issue is nothing new, but has been around since the inception of the nation.

Your attempt to treat the Louisiana purchase as a straw man is nothing more than an attempt to side step an argument for which you lack a pat answer.

Coincident with the purchase was the Lewis and Clark expidition. It was also derided at the time as a waste of tax payer dollars.If you don't think the government has the authority to fund a trip to the moon, you can not beleive that the same government had the authority to fund the Lewis and Clark expidition.

So tell me was Jefferson a traitor to the Constitution, a hypocrite, or a man of vision?

What's your deal here Occupied? You won't cease whining about NASA

I'll ignore the obnoxious and insulting tone of your post and give you the obvious answers.

NASA is the topic of the moment because of the Mars lander. I agree that NASA is not be as large a waste of money as HUD HEW NEA BATF EPA, "war on poverty" medicare medicade, prescription drug payout, etc, but it's fixin' to get a lot larger. ANd the fact that it isn't as big doesn't mean that it isn't a waste.
Space exploration is something that has entheusiastic supporters. Unlike welfare where the only supporters are those who get money from it, space exploration is something that some people will pay for voluntarily. TO me it is an obvious candidate for privatization. Which if you have been following what I've been saying about NASA for the last couple of day is the direction I'd like to see it go.

NASA is to the progress of science and technology as Robert Maplethorp is to art. Both paid for by the taxpayers, but both should be supported privately

I'll ignore the obnoxious and insulting tone of your post and give you the obvious answers.

Have you read your FIRST POST on this thread?? Hrm? Pot, Kettle, you're black. My tone is a direct result of yours. You're not that blind are you?

Which if you have been following what I've been saying about NASA for the last couple of day is the direction I'd like to see it go.

I have been. I've no argument here - private space ventures are going to be a good thing. Thank God, however, that we didn't take this approach from the start. We'd be dozens of years behind in space, and so would our military (wanna guess how effective alot of our "smart" munitions are without GPS and satellites? Or perhaps what the world would look like now if we had no spy satellites?)

NASA is to the progress of science and technology as Robert Maplethorp is to art.

The most unintelligent analogy I've heard in a while. Tell me something, how is it you maintain that position when any freeper scientist that participates in these threads says almost the opposite?? Believing you are right, even in the face of qualified, expert testimony, is quite irrational, no?

Good question. Section 8 Clause 7 "To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"

I have some urgent mail for Moon Base Alpha. How's it going to get there? Seriously, if we put a Post Office on the Moon, would you then consider the space program constitutional?

Positive, but the interstate is paid for by federal taxes on motor fuel (or at least that is my understanding of where the funds come from) So in reality you determine how much you contribute to the interstate system by determining how much you drive.

Uh, you've slipped up here. I hardly ever drive on the IHS yet I'm taxed on gasoline (at gunpoint) at the same rate as some retired couple who uses it to travel across America. Why am I paying for those freeloading seniors???

NASA, along with the HEW, HUD and other alphabet soup in Moscow Washington is direct wealth transfer, and not really a pay per use system.

You're confused on "direct wealth transfer". When you go to BestBuy and buy a TV, is that a "direct wealth transfer" from you to BestBuy? Nope. You are paying for products and service. Direct wealth transfer is shifting money from one person to another without any corresponding product or service changing hands.

Look, I'm not the most enthusiastic space nut around. I don't want us to do it simply for national prestige. I don't want us to do it "for all mankind", either. There are serious national defense issues. Loss of our satellites would have serious economic/security results. We need to maintain and advance our mastery of space.

Of course there should be limits on government spending. My point is the issue is not as black and white as you wish to characterize it.It is more like a sliding scale with pure social programs, such as spending money to get people to accept the gay lifestyle on one end and support for roads, a navy, etc on the other end.

In truth NASA and space exploration is somewher in the middle. Just how close it is to either end is subject to honest debate. Your calling anyone who does not accept your argument a DUer demonstrates an unwillingness on your part to egage in an honest debate over the issue. You don't win arguments by simply insulting everyone who takes a position contrary to yours.

In my posts, I have attempted to treat this discussion with dignity. I have provided both a logical and historical perspective for you to at least consider in your thought process. If you wish to address the logical and historical issues, fine. If you do not, thats fine too. Just don't expect many to engage you in a serious discussion. Its your thread...have it your way.

My response to what government spending is justified is implicit in my very first comment. As a conservative I always impose a social agenda test to any government spending. The more characteristics of social change, improvement or justice in a program, the more distastefulit is to me. So, it should be obvious that I am opposed to welfare spending and and the like. I am less opposed to the building of a road or a dam and I love the military, since my child is in the Air Force.

I think I have answered your question in # 63.

The logical argument is that the Constitution gives the U.S. government the right to collect taxes and spend those taxes in accordance with the dictates of the country's elected representatives. Doing so doesn't interfere with any state's rights. It becomes a matter of practicality as to whether the use of public moneys for space exploration is a good idea. I happen to think it is, the more so since space exploration redounds to the benefit of military preparedness and the ability of the nation to defend itself against its enemies, which enemies will most certainly be applying their efforts toward the same end.

Ultimately, all taxes are collected "at gunpoint." That's an emotive term that has no validity in an argument about the rectitude of how taxes are collected and used.

Long winded reply in hope of increasing understanding

Have you read your FIRST POST on this thread

Err, what was insulting about my first post unless you object to "flame away liberals" and that was directed to people who start with flame rather than a reasoned response.

wanna guess how effective alot of our "smart" munitions are without GPS and satellites? Or perhaps what the world would look like now if we had no spy satellites?)

I should qualify that I don't object to reasonable MILITARY R&D. This is constitutional and I have no objection to it being paid for by tax dollars. Unlike these, the manned exploration of Moon and Mars are pure frippery.

any freeper scientist that participates in these threads says almost the opposite

Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that they are right particularly about the economic side of the issue which is an area in which most of them not only don't have a clue, but have a strong personal bias toward government spending since a lot os scientists get paid at least in part from the taxpayer funded trough. Again if you've been following my ranting yu will note that I said that you never know if what you're getting for your tax dollars is worth what you pay for it because there are no economic price signals. The reason I used the Maplethorp analogy is not that Maplethorp doesn't produce art (even though I find his works repulsive) is that this is a more easily seen example of what you get for your money when the government spends it. My contention is that the same money that has been funneled through NASA over the last 15 or 20 years would probably have yielded far better results if it had been left in the private sector.

Shameful confession here. I hate stating qualifications because anyone can claim to be anything on the web and there is no proof of any of it, but I used to be in the university research business long long ago (bio/med NOT aerospace), and I saw first hand how taxpayer dollars were totally wasted. I used to wonder why the peasants didn't come with torches and pitchforks.

Its your thread...have it your way

It's not my thread any more that it's your thread. I always though that the threads belonged to anyone who participated in them.

Of course there should be limits on government spending.

Here we are in agreement. It's the how of and the what to spend it on that we disagree. The louisiana purchase and Alaska were extraordinary events and they are in no way analogous to the moon and mars. For one thing they had air ie were capable of supporting self sustaining human development. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that there can be self sustaining extraterrestrial colonies. For the second, it did not cost .5% of the GDP every time someone visited New Orleans. The economic gains have to be greater than the economic cost or you have lowered the standard of living for everyone in the country.

As a conservative I always impose a social agenda test to any government spending.

I would consider that to be a more moderate stance with a conservative applying a constitutional criterion. Are we just arguing about the definition of the word "conservative?"

and I love the military, since my child is in the Air Force.

I neithr hate nor love the military. They are one of the few unquestionably consitiutionally legitimate duties of the government and as such should be supported and yes, I do accept the necessity of taxes apying for them.

Whoops, sorta misread your thing. Yeah, you don't want to give money to the government. NASA,though, is friggin pennies out of what you pay, something like 3.75% of DoD's budget.

I don't consider $820,000,000 (and this is just the current mars rovers)pennies. How about the $1.8 billion that the Hubble cost? Remember also that this isn't evenly allocated on everyone in the USA. The top 1% of the taxpayers have picked up something like 36% of the tab for this and the bottom 50% less than one percent, so depending where you are it can over the years add up to one heck of a lot more than a few pennies.

that pure science r&d is as vital as defense spending with respect to the future security and prosperity of the nation.

Yes I understand, but I don't agree that the government should be the source of the funds.

The logical argument is that the Constitution gives the U.S. government the right to collect taxes and spend those taxes in accordance with the dictates of the country's elected representatives.

You are wrong. The constitution gives the government the right to collect taxes and spend those taxes on a limited number of enumerated duties and powers, NOT whatever the whim of the elected representatives is.

What you are describling is pure democracy and is nothing more than mob rule. Sometimes known as 51 wolves and 49 sheep voting on what's for dinner. If you throw out one part of the constution ie the limitations, then you by definition throw out the rest - the right to collect taxes and you no longer have a constitutionally legitimate government but something akin to a feual kingdom where the powers of the lord are unlimited and only the fear of the mob constrains the rulers in any way.

I have some urgent mail for Moon Base Alpha. How's it going to get there? Seriously, if we put a Post Office on the Moon, would you then consider the space program constitutional?

No since the moon is not part of the usa. Although Elanor Holms Norton is being made a representative from there and Sheila Jackson Lee is from Mars

Direct wealth transfer is shifting money from one person to another without any corresponding product or service changing hands.

Yep NASA. What did NASA send me in return for my money? You couldn't even pick up a part of the shuttle and offer to sell it to NASA as some enterprising Texans found out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.