trc@houca.UUCP (10/31/83)
Response to stan the l.h. on long-range actions by the government. (discussion moved from net.sf-lovers) Why do you think that "anything which has only long-range benefits doesnt get done" if it isnt done by government? I can not think of even one example, space included, that cannot be done in *stages*, rather than one long 25 year project. Since WWII, at least, there was steady development of rocket technology - not at the pace done by government edict, perhaps, but it was certainly going on. At most, you could claim that government intervention can accelerate a process, by sacrificing something else (generally the taxpayer's money through taxes). Prescribed punishments for particular crimes are often less than death or torture - but if the "criminal" decides to resist application of that punishment (since we are assuming he believes himself to be acting in the right), how is the government able to apply that punishment? There is an escalation of use of force, which can eventually terminates at the use of physical force. The only alternative for the "criminal" is to submit out of fear of what the government would do next, or to continue on this escalator. Either way, the assumption must be there (by the govt) that the govt has the right to escalate towards physical force in the first place. Either way, the "criminal" has been *forced* to "cooperate". You say that you "notice that no one seems to be resisting taxes because a small protion is spent on the space program". People have gotten used to the idea that the government is going to come and take away 1/3 of their income, and toss them in jail if they dont fork it over. Resisting taxes altogether is not effective - so why would anyone dare to protest $10 more? There are bigger injustices to be concerned with - but that does not excuse the small ones. In fact, I might even support a government run space program, if it made it truly voluntary - that is, everyone could choose to add $10, or whatever, to their tax bill to support space, (or else deduct $10 if they did not want it used for space). By making it voluntary, all ethical objections on the *taxpayer* side of the issue are eliminated. But note - in such a case, there is no difference between the government doing it, and a private organization doing it! The thing that makes government action different (the backing of force) has been removed in this case. Of course, the government should not then *compete* with private industry with the money so gained. Practically the only way it could do this is to stick strictly to scientific missions, with all information gathered made public. There would be no launching of private satellites, for example, because that means the govt helps out those companies big enough to afford communication sattelites but unable afford the launch facilities, to the disadvantage of those that cannot afford either. Tom Craver houca!trc