Ron Paul on NASA??

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Yes but this is not the point i am making. NASA provides a whole different service to some people. The research is the end point. Knowledge about the universe will not translate in a cool device next year, but knowledge is a virtue that would not be correctly valued in a pure libertarian society, because cause and effect in your investment is absolutely not so direct. If i would donate 200 a year to a private Nasa or i would not and be cheap, almost the same information about the universe would have been gathered. Unless everyone thinks like that off course...

Sometimes research needs to be done because it is interesting and not because development of materialistic objects can stem from it.

And there are really rich people that agree with you. Therefore, you and people who want to throw money at research just for the sake of knowledge can do so on your own. Stop using the government to force the rest of us to go along with you.

You think NASA is the only organization in the world who does research simply for research's sake? There are TONS of privately funded organizations who simply do research. There is ZERO need to include government coerced funding in the picture.

 

[Athan]

And there are really rich people that agree with you. Therefore, you and people who want to throw money at research just for the sake of knowledge can do so on your own. Stop using the government to force the rest of us to go along with you.

You think NASA is the only organization in the world who does research simply for research's sake? There are TONS of privately funded organizations who simply do research. There is ZERO need to include government coerced funding in the picture.

Nate. No need to be so adamant iabout it with a fellow supporter. I agree with you, but there are priorities and funding or removing funding from NASA is a LOW priority. What difference does it make now if NASA is not the reason we are bankrupt? NASA is not the endless wars, growing welfare state, surveillence state, and etc.

Its just a bunch of science geeks with little funding at this time anyway. Just agree with him or disagree and don't worry about converting. As long as he understands part of the Ron Paul platform its a win win.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Nate. No need to be so adamant iabout it with a fellow supporter. I agree with you, but there are priorities and funding or removing funding from NASA is a LOW priority. What difference does it make now if NASA is not the reason we are bankrupt? NASA is not the endless wars, growing welfare state, surveillence state, and etc.

Its just a bunch of science geeks with little funding at this time anyway. Just agree with him or disagree and don't worry about converting. As long as he understands part of the Ron Paul platform its a win win.

I'm lost. What?

 

[kuckfeynes]

Just because it's not a high priority on the list of wasteful programs that need to go NOW, doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

It's still an excellent example to illustrate the philosophy of liberty. It is still a wasteful program that needs to go. Anything critical to national defense can stay, but beyond that, using taxpayer money to fund general space exploration is wrong.

Ron Paul has asserted his voluntarism numerous times, and this is no exception. Just because you believe it is important to fund does not give you the right to force me to help you fund it.

It's small beans compared to the wars and entitlements, but the principle is the same. Bureaucracies are inherently wasteful, and in order to fund them wealth must necessarily be confiscated from the private sector. So when you look at all the great things NASA has done, it is a fallacy to think that without NASA we would lack this technology. Rather, you should be thinking how much MORE and MORE USEFUL technology we would have, had that capital been allowed to stay in the hands of private investors.

 

[lx43]

NASA should be eliminated simply because its not authorized in the constitution. Keep in mind, this statement is coming from me, a guy that loves space exploration.

 

[Sematary]

NASA should be eliminated simply because its not authorized in the constitution. Keep in mind, this statement is coming from me, a guy that loves space exploration.

Again, I respectfully disagree. Since space exploration didn't exist at the time the constitution was written, doesn't mean that it cannot be included in the legitimate funding of the government. Space exploration certainly has military implications. The Constitution does not explicitly authorize funding for an "air force" because no such thing existed then but I doubt anyone would argue that because it doesn't say the words, that the air force shouldn't be funded. Likewise, NASA, can also certainly be considered a legitimate use of taxpayer moneys as one of the tasks of the scientists there is to understand and recognize threats that are not terrestrial in nature.

Our understanding of the solar system is greatly enhanced by the space program. Satellite technology, which has numerous, possibly countless, military implications, is the direct result of our space program. To suggest that we shouldn't fund such endeavors simply because we want to "slash government" is ludicrous. Cutting off the space program would be like cutting off a finger simply because you have a splinter. Ridiculous.

 

[low preference guy]

Again, I respectfully disagree. Since space exploration didn't exist at the time the constitution was written, doesn't mean that it cannot be included in the legitimate funding of the government.

If so, then it can be included after amending the Constitution. The amendment hasn't passed yet, so it isn't authorized.

 

[cdc482]

Do not assume just because the government has had a monopoly on something that it can't be accomplished in the private sector. Virgin Galactic is about to start sending people into space at $200,000 a trip. Hundreds have already paid for this service. With demand like that you will see (baring government intervention) many competitors popping up over the next decade. Competition means the quality will go up while the price goes down. In 20 years you'll be able to fly from New Mexico to China in 1 hour at a cost of a normal plane ticket.

But besides that, lets look at something you said. "Without government funding, how could any profits be made?"

On the contrary, it's because of a government monopoly that no company has yet been able to venture into space for profit. How could a private company compete with a government that gets its funds through taxation? Also, the reason space exploration costs billions and billions is precisely because the government has had a monopoly for 50 years.

Now back to the exploration side. The first moon colony will be for mining. Once we've determined that we can extract valuable ore on the cheap there will be a mad rush to the moon. Once mining camps are established you'll be in a better position to launch missions to Mars. All of this requires a free market to work. Central planning absolutely cannot anticipate all of the factors involved in humans moving on beyond this planet.

Google Lunar X Prize

 

[LibertyEsq]

agreed

With 7 billion people on earth and rapidly rising, I wonder when people will think space exploration is an important issue. 10 billion? 20?

 

[Athan]

I'm lost. What?

I'm simply saying its no big deal if one concerns themselves with the government funding NASA or not. Its just so.. irrelevant.

 

[truthspeaker]

Even is Dr. Paul's stance is tough on NASA, I don't think Congress would agree to completely cut the program.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I'm simply saying its no big deal if one concerns themselves with the government funding NASA or not. Its just so.. irrelevant.

OK, firstly, this was the original question in the OP...

What I really want to know is, Is NASA or government funded space exploration in his 'Plan to Restore America?

The answer is, Ron Paul isn't going to touch NASA because there are bigger fish to fry.

And I agree with that approach.


Moving beyond that though, Ron Paul has said that the government should only do what it is Constitutionally authorized to do, and space exploration is not one of them.

Moving beyond that, philosophically, space exploration funded by pointing a gun at people and saying pay up is completely unethical.

Does this clear things up?

 

[JamesButabi]

Speaking of.....

Microsoft Co-founder to launch plane and cargo into space.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2011/12...iant-plane-to-launch-people-cargo-into-space/

 

[Athan]

OK, firstly, this was the original question in the OP...

What I really want to know is, Is NASA or government funded space exploration in his 'Plan to Restore America?

The answer is, Ron Paul isn't going to touch NASA because there are bigger fish to fry.

And I agree with that approach.


Moving beyond that though, Ron Paul has said that the government should only do what it is Constitutionally authorized to do, and space exploration is not one of them.

Moving beyond that, philosophically, space exploration funded by pointing a gun at people and saying pay up is completely unethical.

Does this clear things up?

Oh, I COMPLETELY agree with you as I said before. I just wanted to stress, that its no big deal if the government funds it at this time. It's like complaining that you have a hairline crack in your windshield when your car is going up in flames.

 

[Athan]

Speaking of.....

Microsoft Co-founder to launch plane and cargo into space.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2011/12...iant-plane-to-launch-people-cargo-into-space/

I saw that! Totally badass and PROOF the private sector can be far more effective than NASA as it doesn't need to worry about the political will power of tax thieves.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Oh, I COMPLETELY agree with you as I said before. I just wanted to stress, that its no big deal if the government funds it at this time. It's like complaining that you have a hairline crack in your windshield when your car is going up in flames.

True, but I was complaining. I was responding to the position that NASA is necessary. If I had started a thread titled "OMGWTF WE GOT TO GET RID OF NASA!!!11" then I can understand trying to get me to back off. But that isn't what happened. The OP had a question about NASA. It was answered. And then we moved on to a philosophical debate.

Kinda what this place is for.

 

[Sematary]

If so, then it can be included after amending the Constitution. The amendment hasn't passed yet, so it isn't authorized.

Neither is the air force. You want to add an amendment to account for future military technologies? Really?

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Neither is the air force. You want to add an amendment to account for future military technologies? Really?

There should be a specific amendment to include the air force in defense. Space defense should be part of the air force.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Neither is the air force. You want to add an amendment to account for future military technologies? Really?

Yes. Either the Constitution means something (has teeth) or it doesn't.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

There should be a specific amendment to include the air force in defense. Space defense should be part of the air force.

That too ^^