Government's role in space

Well, lets see.

Space X, Dependent on Nasa Funding/ Nasa Tech
Bigelow Aerospace, Dependent on Nasa Tech
Scaled Composites, Dependent on Nasa Tech
United Launch Alliance, Dependent on Nasa Funding/ Nasa Tech
Orbital Sciences, Dependent on Nasa Funding/ Nasa Tech

So. If there was no Nasa, what would happen to the 'Private' space companies?

You seem to claim that space research and exploration have no benefit in terms of 'Life Liberty or the pusuit of happiness'.

Where were all the private interests investing in Goddard?

The Free Market generally suffers from extreme short-sightedness.

No, that's your claim, not mine. I'm still keeping an open mind.

I think that publicly funded space research is vital to a persons individual liberty. I also think that justifies the existence of entities such as Nasa.

Jeffrey Manber presents "Can Capitalism Survive in Space?"
[url]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfoFAwPu ... re=related[/url]
A long video, but on exactly this topic, and worth watching.

Thats a great video. But it illustrates my basic points.

National space agencies are great when the stick to tech and growing the private industry. They are a pain in the ass when they do 'national interest stuff' like moon misssions.

Also he clearly illustrates that private industry still heavily relies on national investment.

Every one of his examples of 'private entreprenurship' heavily leveraged government investment.

He also clearly states that Space is not open to VC attempts yet or pure private ventures.

Well, he says that he thinks that NASA in unnecessary. One big reason for going to space, I think, is for a nation's national security. Just like a navy is needed to secure the oceans for a country, space also needs to be secure for a nation. But that should be run by the military, not a civilian agency.

He actaully says research should be run by the research departments and space regulation run by the FAA etc. This doesn't mean no national space agency, just breaking Nasa into several agencies.

But then who would be the customer giving all that free tech and money to the so called 'private' companies?

He claimed Mir as the first private space station. As if it had no government underpinnings. Private effort did not build Mir or Energia. The 'Competition' to Nasa is from other, better, national space agencies.

National Space agencies are not bad per se, but lately Nasa has been a bad example of one in a lot of areas, basically all the areas you think it should be in.

He advocates Nasa getting out of 'National Pride' roles. Thats basically their big problem. If Nasa wasn't working for 'national interests' then it wouldn't keep stepping on the private industry.

Anarchy only means that there's no official government running the country, and the greatest masses decides what's great and not. Anarchy is actually a form of democracy in my opinion (and many others). Anarchy is seldom "do what you please, with no concern for other people" as anarchy mostly is "do what you will, but don't remember other people" when discussed as a serious form of "government". Isn't that freedom? It is in my book.

The most surprising thing about the recent announcement is SNC with the DreamChaser. Didn't expect them to fund such a design.

Anarchy is not do what you please. Anarchy is do whatever the guy with the biggest gun pleases.
And Democracy is not the same thing as freedom. Issues regarding freedom should not be voted upon.

You have stated that you know nothing about Somalia, yet you are claiming to be an authority on what is and isn't anarchy. You have no experience of anarchy and you obviously haven't read anything about it or it's connections with libertarianism. You are wrong, plain and simple, but you can't see that and you refuse to learn anything beyond what you already know.

Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither - Ben Franklin

johno

If you say so . . .

Let the arguments stand on their own two feet, irrelevant of whether I am an authority or not.

So, a truly free person has no say in issues regarding their own freedom?

Thats a tad Orwellian.

I'm talking about governments, not individuals. Governments should not have the ability to take away people's freedom, even if they are democratically elected.