Oh, I don’t know; in some ways, I’m beginning to agree with Lib. This morning on the news, there was coverage over the last city council meeting being presided over by the mayor of the Cleveland suburb of Brooklyn, John Coyne. He was defeated in the last election after having served over 50 years as mayor. He probably has never had a private-sector job in his adult life. Few things stick in my craw more than professional politicians who live their entire lives on the public nickel, then berate welfare recipients. One of the visuals in the story was a “Welcome to Brooklyn” sign, which included the addendum, “Home of the seat belt law!” All I could think was, “And they’re proud of that?”
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
Point 1: I believe the owners of this site have granted me the same priviledges granted to the rest of you, so long as I behave civilly.
Point 2: I see nothing particularly heinous about having viewpoints on issues that are consistent with my principles.
Point 3: I did not introduce the idea of a libertarian viewpoint on this issue in this thread. It was raised by Akatsukami.
Point 4: This is not your thread; it’s EddietheDane’s. Other than your hysterical diatribe against me, you haven’t contributed anything at all.
Point 5: I know GirlFace quite well from another thread best known for its lack of invective, and if I thought she was making the point that WalMart was a good value for $50, I still would have asked her if she would consider it a good thing were she forced to find good values there. (Of course, given my track record, she is probably a man.)
Point 6: Your statement that my philosophy is cruel and immoral is precisely the kind of observation to which you seem to be manifestly opposed.
And Point 7: If you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
As you might surmise, I’m as equally against coroporate welfare as I am against welfare for such leeches as professional politicians.
I think NASA qualifies as a corporate welfare entity. I have nothing against the exploration of space. In fact, I am like Gaudere, and would be eager to do it. But I think that if that is something I want to do, then I should have to pay for it myself.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
That’s because there is nothing wrong with having such viewpoints. My point is that not every thread that in some way involves spending by the State has to be an argument about spending by the State in general. If Maoist showed up and started posting in each thread that “no, we should not spend money on that program because it delays the People’s Revolution”, would not that get tiresome to you after a while? (Hope I haven’t created a monster.)
Akatsukami made a brief (and OK, debatable) comment about how he feels a strict libertarian would view the space program. You started in with the whole “if someone forced you…” stuff. In context, there’s nothing wrong with that, but you have to realize that bringing it up in unrelated thread after unrelated thread pretty much makes you the Jehovah’s Witness of libertarianism.
Actually, it’s neither mine nor Eddie’s. It’s everyone’s. Including lurkers.
That’s exactly my point. Yes, we know that you think you shouldn’t have to pay for the space program because you shouldn’t have to pay for anything you personally don’t want to pay for. That is not the subject of this thread, AFAIK.
Well, a little hyperbole during a rant never hurt anyone. Sorry if it did.
The trip from “I hope to convince you that this one particular program is a waste of money and that we should make it go away” to “No one should have to pay for anything but that which s/he individually and freely chooses to pay for” is a little longer than a “little logical extrapolation.” IMHO, of course.
That said, I’m sorry I made the comment. I did so solely out of frustration from seeing the same thing pasted all over this board like so much bad UBB coding. If I had ignored it, as Lib suggested and I should have done, it would have sat there in isolation forever. Instead I bit, and now we’re on post 8 or so.
So let’s pretend I never said it, and return the thread to the actual subject.
The actual subject, I believe, is “why should we spend even a nickel on NASA?”
My answer is that if you want to spend your nickels on NASA, you should be allowed to do so, and if you don’t want to spend your nickels on NASA, then no one should be allowed to pry your nickels away from you against your will for their own purposes.
Fair enough?
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Nope. Neither, apparently, do many of those who style themselves “libertarians”.
Now, I know what libertarianism is supposed to be: it’s supposed to be a political philosophy that argues that the use of force and/or fraud in dealings between people is immoral.
Now, the problem with this viewpoint is threefold:
[list=1][li]Libertarianism is incomplete. It speaks to the nature of political relations between individuals, but to nothing else. There are two parallel threads going on here: “Why should we spend money on NASA?” and “What would you change about space exploration?”. Libertarianism speaks to the first thread, saying, “We shouldn’t”; it does not speak to the second thread.[/li][li]Libertarianism completely ignores the possibility of emergent qualities in society. A favorite saying of libertarians is, “When is it moral for the group to do what it is not moral for a member of the group to do?” The a priori libertarian answer is, “Never”.[/li][li]Libertarianism does, in fact, reduce to anarchism in the limit. Once we have denied the possibility of the use of force (including in the collection of taxes), we have eliminated government – and those fictitious institution that depend on it.[/li][/list=1]
Then please distinguish between the two.
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
I’ll keep this brief and germaine to the topic, out of respect for the site owners and participants.
Libertarianism is not opposed to “the use of force”. It is opposed to “the initation of force”. The technical term for initial force in libertarian ethics is “coercion”. Coercion includes fraud, which is a means to the same end: to force a person into a praxis against what otherwise would be his own volition.
Libertarianism differs from anarchy in that the former advocates a strong government charged with securing the rights of its citizens, whereas the latter recognizes no legitimacy in any government.
Applying those principles with respect to the issue at hand, if people want to explore space, and their means are peaceful and honest (i.e., free from coercion and fraud), then by all means let them do so. But it is quite impossible to peacefully and honestly seize property for your own purposes from people who themselves are peaceful and honest and intend their property be used for some other purpose.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Listen, Libertarian, I don’t like paying taxes any more than you. If you have a plan where we wouldn’t have to pay taxes, and still satisfy the needs of government, I’ll vote for you. So would 250 million other people. It’s likely that you don’t, since your’re wasting time here.
Yeah, I want to spend more nickels on NASA. I want more than $50 of my $5k+ that goes to Uncle Sam every year to go to NASA.
I’m not much into politics, I’m just stating my views, that’s all. But hey man, you got a real solution, then just do it.
If you want to give more money to NASA, there is an entire bureaucracy funded by forcefully seized property for the express purpose of accepting property you wish to willingly donate.
And on the off-chance that you’re really interested in a few hundred ways to do things (like explore space) without forced taxation, you can see those here: http://www.free-market.net
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
I actually LIKE paying taxes. I don’t always agree with the way they are spent, but the space program is one spot that can have all my tax dollars and I will SMILE about it!
Lib, I’m not well-versed in the Libertarian scene, but from what I gathered from this thread and posts in the Athiest forum, it is based on fairness and justice. Those are two things I have yet to see ACTUALLY WORK in democracy, although they are nice concepts. I guess my point is, in our social/political set up, I don’t see how we can please everyone. We hire public servants who will hopefully make the best decisions on where our money goes. Not all of us are going to agree with all of it, but in this case, I’m happy to contribute to the funding of the space program.
Libertarianism is based on the Principle of Noncoercion. You can see a brief summary called “Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy” here: http://www.libertarian.org/libphilo.html
I’m glad you’re happy with your “contributions” to the space program. And I’m sure your equally happy with your “contributions” to the Russian one. But would you be just as happy if the contractors who actually make the space program work sent you a bill directly?
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
I suppose I wouldn’t mind that, but that’s not the form of government we have here. I think we’re kind of stuck with it unless someone changes it. I have no problem at all with helping the Russians out of a “space jam”, so to speak. I think the benefits we gain from the program will help everyone in the world – not just those of us in the U S of A. In fact, I prefer that it be a world effort with world benefit.
What I am against is interference in the affairs of peaceful honest people who simply are pursuing their own happiness in their own way.
I believe that for you, and also for Beeruser — you should be allowed to send all you want, up to and including everything you have to NASA if that makes you happy. But I also believe it for all those who would be happier doing something else with their money. That means there is a difference between a fee and a tax.
I believe it for people who might be happy expressing themselves in some weird way. But I also believe it for people who would sooner not be the object of that weirdness. That means my rights end where yours begin.
I believe it for gay men and lesbians who want to enter into a marriage contract. But I also believe it for corporate shareholders who might not want to extend certain benefits to their spouses. That means I have the right to work, but you don’t have an obligation to hire me.
I am against any cause, no matter how ostensibly noble, that invokes the need to pillage the property of innocent people, even if its just a little property for the greatest imaginable cause. I am against any tyranny, no matter if it was authorized by the votes of millions of people.
And I am against taking even one nickel from anyone against their will.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Hey, with the correct ID of GirlFace, you’re now batting, what, .050? Congrats on pulling out of the slump!
“Eddie,” it was not my intention to belittle you or call names. I had a hunch, based on your name having a particular significance in SF/space fan argot, that you were “playing a game” in your initial post, and tried to respond in kind. I’m not familiar with a lot of movies, and did not catch whatever the referent is. Nor did I intend to castigate your opinions.
ExTank: The problem is that there’s no easy solution. Once an agency is established it’s very hard to slim it down. Like my friend Pat, who works for the government, says: Management never cuts itself.
The simplest solution would be to destroy NASA and build a new organization from the ground up. But that would be very expensive in the short term, and probably political suicide for anyone who tried it.
I support space exploration, I just don’t support NASA.
