How exactly could we have space exploration/moon landings without government?

socialize_me

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
870
I'm anxious in being enlightened for this topic. I understand some quasi-space travel is going on privately, costing millions for individuals to take part in it, but how exactly would space travel work under privatization?? I mean, it's been almost 40 years since the government subsidized human landing on the moon...it's 2008 and we're just starting to get billionaires to fly a couple miles outside of our atmosphere. Who knows how long it will take for the private sector to adopt space travel to be as popular as going to Europe or Australia for vacation, but it seems as if it's very, very far off. Wasn't NASA a good thing??
 
Why do we need to travel into space? Every time I see a space shuttle launch (or explode), I think about how much of my money is going up in smoke... Scrap NASA.
 
how about we finish exploring space (inner) and then think about exploring space(outer)
 
Why do we need to travel into space? Every time I see a space shuttle launch (or explode), I think about how much of my money is going up in smoke... Scrap NASA.

Are you kidding?? You realize how much innovation has come out of space travel?

Why do you need the Internet? That was formulated by government. Every time I see a bad website or blog, I think about how much of my grandparent's money went up in smoke.
 
I don't see why technology to get into space would be hindered if it were a completely private market. I don't know how it is done now, but any industry that relies on satellite communication would be investing in that technology. As for things like landing people on the moon, well, if there is something useful to come from it for some sort of consumer it would happen, otherwise it's just a waste of money if no market could exist for it. I hope that makes sense.
 
Are you kidding?? You realize how much innovation has come out of space travel?

Why do you need the Internet? That was formulated by government. Every time I see a bad website or blog, I think about how much of my grandparent's money went up in smoke.

Laws should never be based upon assumptions. You cannot assume innovation will result from taxing people to pay for a ridiculous and completely unnecessary program.


A lot of civilian technology (such as the internet) originates solely or partially from military innovation. Surely you aren't suggesting we should increase military funding because it may lead to innovations usable by civilians. Even in the most ideal state of your implications, it's government-controlled/subsidized science.
 
Are you kidding?? You realize how much innovation has come out of space travel?

Why do you need the Internet? That was formulated by government. Every time I see a bad website or blog, I think about how much of my grandparent's money went up in smoke.

Al Gore is responsible for the Drudge Report? WOW!!! This is deep.
 
You realize how much innovation has come out of space travel?


Not even counting the indirect benefits . . .
NASA is pennies compared to the amounts budgeted for the invasions of foreign countries like Iraq

Cutting out NASA was probably - or definitely - the weakest part of Ron Paul's policy suggestions during the 2008 campaign.
 
Not even counting the indirect benefits . . .
NASA is pennies compared to the amounts budgeted for the invasions of foreign countries like Iraq

Cutting out NASA was probably - or definitely - the weakest part of Ron Paul's policy suggestions during the 2008 campaign.

Yeah, what would I do without Tang, space blankets and freeze dried food?!?!
 
The same way we fly, which is to say through choice not force.
 
Last edited:
Laws should never be based upon assumptions. You cannot assume innovation will result from taxing people to pay for a ridiculous and completely unnecessary program.


A lot of civilian technology (such as the internet) originates solely or partially from military innovation. Surely you aren't suggesting we should increase military funding because it may lead to innovations usable by civilians. Even in the most ideal state of your implications, it's government-controlled/subsidized science.

All laws, even the Constitution, were based on assumptions. The Bill of Rights was based on the assumption the Federal Government would be like every other central government in history. Counterfeit laws were passed based on the assumption counterfeiters would exist. Murder laws exist on the assumption murders would occur. What the fuck are you talking about?

So based on your logic, we shouldn't have a military budget because we cannot assume we need to have a military or fund it for its innovations.
 
Last edited:
In a free market, people produce what others need and want. If enough people needed or wanted to go to space, it would happen, and it would happen in the most efficient way to get the people exactly what they wanted. People need to communicate, so tools are created all the time for that purpose privately, and the internet would have been as well.

Smart people work on government projects sometimes, and they create useful things. This does not mean these smart people would not otherwise be working on other projects, and still create useful things. Someone would have created the internet if it were not for the military use, quite possibly sooner than it was created, because all of those brains and resources would not have been tied up by the government.

Charity is very important as well, by which we can help those who need it, and fund worthy research projects for the benefit of society.

In the end, there are three types of transactions:
1. The willing exchange of resources or time for the mutual benefit of both parties.
2. The willing gift of resources of time for the benefit of one party or of society.
3. The forceful taking of resources or time by the threat of violence and harm.

The first two of these transactions are acceptable, the last is not. Even in those rare cases when the third transaction can be said to have led to something good, it does not make that transaction acceptable. It is wrong to steal, and it is wrong to enslave. The fact that the slave's back may have been strengthened by the slavery, or the stolen money was partially used for something good, does not make that third kind of transaction any less evil.
 
Last edited:
All laws, even the Constitution, were based on assumptions. The Bill of Rights was based on the assumption the Federal Government would be like every other central government in history. Counterfeit laws were passed based on the assumption counterfeiters would exist. Murder laws exist on the assumption murders would occur. What the fuck are you talking about?

So based on your logic, we shouldn't have a military budget because we cannot assume we need to have a military or fund it for its innovations.

I think what he meant was taxation of any kind should not be enforced based upon possible future scenarios.

In my opinion, taxation should not be enforced at all for any reason.
 
So based on your logic, we shouldn't have a military budget because we cannot assume we need to have a military or fund it for its innovations.

Are you saying if we didn't go to the moon, the Martians would have seen us as weak and attacked us?
 
Back
Top