[Several years ago, I wrote "Space: The Forgotten Frontier" which was a response to Robert Sagehorn and was published in The Thought in 1993. After sending a copy of my response to Jean Heriot, she published it in her magazine KaspahRaster. After that, Bob Black wrote a witty reply to my response dubbed "The Space Between Daniel Ust's Ears: Not Quite the Final Frontier." I wrote a rejoinder, but Jean gave me a choice between having one of my short stories ("Splitting Hares") or the rejoinder published. I chose the former. I've been unable to find my original response, so I typed up another one because I felt Black's attack on my piece should not go unanswered, especially since he attributes views to me which I did not and do not now hold and also because recent history has proven him wrong in some respects.]
Bob Black is out merely to be witty but not accurate in his reaction to "Space: The Forgotten Frontier." To take up his analogy, while the "the government delivers mail" in the US (but not in New Zealand, and they seem to get along fine without a government postal service), it does not completely prevent "Federal Express or UPS from doing profitable business." But this is only in the area of parcels. The government outlawed late last century private delivery of first class mail. In fact, businesses caught doing this – even shipping letters bunched into parcels – have been heavily fined for doing so. It's amazing that a lawyer like Black would not know this.
Black questions "why aren't the entrepreneurs moving into space on their own, as capitalist economics say they should?" Well, it should be obvious in 1999 that they are, albeit it slowly. Hardly a week passes now without some news of a private space venture. I still think government involvement, from NASA to the ESA and beyond, is too high and has had a detrimental effect. This is why I cited Gump's book [Space Enterprise: Beyond NASA].
Black distorts my comment on NASA not using External Tanks Corp.'s idea to make cheaper space stations to be me "angling for a government contract." Aside from the fact that I have no connection to that company and no skills in lobbying, this is not true anyway. I used the example to point out how even though NASA did have (and still does have) an extremely cheap way to build space stations – by using the external tanks of its shuttle as platforms – it has not taken it. Given this, it proves my point that NASA is not motivated by concerns of economic efficiency. Rather, the whole space station program is merely politics – making NASA look big time and important – rather than something practical. (No doubt, some good will come of it, but at what price?)
I also disagree with him about getting rid of regulations, taxes, and prohibitions on the space industry. First, companies that launch rockets face more regulations and prohibitions than your average business in this country. So, it's not merely a case of a them facing the same political environment. Second, they face competition from NASA subsidized big players, such as Boeing. Boeing not only has it's own launch fleet, it gets huge government handouts because of its position. A small startup rocket company does not have this nonmarket advantage. (Granted, this is not unique to the space industry, but not every business faces a big competitor with lots of politically derived cash.) Third, if a business or person escapes regulation and taxation, this is not a subsidy per se. When someone smokes pot in California, this does not make the Drug War worse in New York City. Instead, this is known as freedom. We should work on expanding freedom – not making sure everyone has the same level of unfreedom in their lives. If I had a choice of me being taxed 10% but you not being taxed and of both of us being taxed 10%, the former would be better. Surely, I'm having my wealth robbed from me, but it doesn't make me any more free or happier if you also are being robbed.
There are companies taking their business elsewhere, to be sure, and some of these are space companies. However, there are US export regulations which do not allow such companies to export rocket (missile) technology and the pool of space workers is larger in the US than in any other country – except, perhaps, Russia, which is not exactly a great place to do business.
And Russia is trying to market its space program and make it more profitable. Chances are it will be a force to be reckoned with if it does not get completely sucked into NASA's plans. Even so, Russian rocketry is not so great and it still has the moral stink of government funding on it.
Nowhere do I claim that business and government don't often "work" together. Above, I use the example of Boeing. To admit this is not a condemnation of the free market. Instead, it's a condemnation of businesses that go outside the market to bully competitors or avoid consumer control. That some anarchists turn others in to the police – whether this happens in Spain or in the US – is no condemnation of anarchism, but merely points out that some people are bad. My goal is to make it harder for such people to use the government – either by abolishing it or making it into the night watchman state of classical liberal discourse.
Finally, I'm not for living on planets at all or even for polluting space or anywhere. Pollution is waste. New technology, whether in space or on Earth, will reduce waste. Black is out of his league here. NAFTA is not free market, space industry does not require using up worlds or putting junk in orbit, and technological fixes are nearly inevitable and often do work. On the last, surely they are not perfect, but every solution comes with new problems. Does this mean we always must stick with the old problem until a perfect solution comes along? Doing so would mean stagnation and, ultimately, death. I choose progress and life over that.