The Moon Society is looking Beyond NASA. While I would prefer a pure free market opening of the moon, the practicalities are that libertarian ideas are not globally influential enough to let us have our way. Peter Kokh discusses ideas that might at least let us get an opportunity to plant and grow the tree of liberty off world.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Beyond NASAJuly 20th, 2009 |
 7 comments to Beyond NASA |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Historically, all ‘exploration’ has been in the service of ‘exploitation’. The notion of exploration simply for knowledge is a powerful myth, however. It matters little whether it be state-sponsored or private.
‘Exploitation’ of whom exactly, Patrick?
Not “of whom”, Alisa, but “of what”. Historically, explorers were looking for gold, spices, furs, trade routes, etc. Settlers followed seeking land to farm, religious, political or economic freedom, etc. I think that was Patrick’s point, and it is a valid one. It’s also Ian B’s argument in other threads, and while I criticize him for his lack of vision I don’t dispute his point that there needs to be the expectation of an economic payoff someday to justify the adventure. Some of us believe it will be found; others don’t see it. Only time will tell.
I don’t know what came over me and made me think of Patrick’s comment along the lines of the most simple-minded of the Marxist drivel – probably an overdose of Israeli blogs…Apologies:-)
It’s OK, Alisha, natural mistake, my sloppy wording: anyway, I too see Marxists under the bed every day.
Following Laird, what we need is an economic development model for space exploration. Proven reserves of something valuable on the Moon could be followed by an auction of mineral rights, probably conducted by the UN (at last, a use for that thing). Alongside that, a settlement scheme might be in order. Developing the Prairies in Canada is an instance. Moosejaw, Saskatchewan, was probably as far from support as the Moon is today—some might argue it still is—but the land-hungry of Europe went off with their quarter section grant, seeds, and tools.
The auction might yield the funds to set up and operate a transport link. Again, think Prairies, think railways. Fares would be charged, but effectively subsidised. Priority on the Moon Express could go to successful bidders in the land auction, with others on a first-come basis.
Step one must be a thorough economic resource survey of the Moon. Perhaps only government agencies are capable of carrying this out, though a good deal of the mapping and resource-finding in the C19th was private venture. The British Royal Navy did much of the ocean and harbour surveying, and it served trade as well as war-making.
Analogies are tricky things, but there are possibilities. As a conservative libertarian I believe in learning from the past—another form of exploitation!
An auction by the UN? By what right? If anyone “owns” the moon it’s whoever gets there first and homesteads it. (Not just lands once and puts up a flag, but establishing a permanent settlement.)
Laird:
I suggested the UN for want of anything more obviously useful. I hold the UN in almost complete contempt, but it might be possible for it to play an arbiter role this instance.
What about the peaceful apportioning of Antarctica a few decades ago? The problem there was that it was in no-one’s interest to have territorial disputes flare up. Some might argue that it worked because there were no significant resources to be coveted at the time. The growing rumbles about under-sea oil and so on in the Arctic would support this point.
However, while you pick up the homesteading concept from my Prairies analogy, I think it is unlikely to be acceptable, or practicable. Non-State development of Moon resources is going to require international co-operation, and the best vehicle for that is private enterprise, not one-state monopoly. I do think consortia of governments may have to get into the transportation business because of the huge up-front investment required. The common carrier concept would apply here: a fare for services would be charged to recover some of the needed investment. The rest of the investment could be redeemed by import taxes on mined material. If off-Earth manufacturing takes hold, finished goods could still be taxed.
Private industry functions much like this anyway: roads, state railways, state power grids and so on; manufacturing and consumer taxes; and environmental and factory regulations.
If the Moon, and more distant space, is to be developed, I think we should be using tried and tested models and concepts. Totally novel mechanisms would only add to the problems developers face.