tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post2586134033930303506..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Forty Years YesterdayGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-15952664588734437142009-07-21T21:35:05.450-06:002009-07-21T21:35:05.450-06:00In one sense, yes.
What she is saying is similar ...In one sense, yes.<br /><br />What she is saying is similar to what she said in "The Question of Scholarships:"<br /><br />"<i>Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.<br /><br />Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.</i>"<br /><br />The money has already been stolen, and your ability to prevent the theft is nil, so take the money/see to it that it goes to as rational a pursuit as possible, while opposing the theft in whatever way you can.<br /><br />Or, if that's not clear, consider another example. The government SHOULD be engaged in national defense, and yet it ought not raise money by taxation. It does NOT follow that in the meantime, until we can repeal taxation, we should stop funding the military by this stolen money. Doing so would compound the injustice of the welfare state with failing to defend America from foreign aggressors.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-9111988091424122632009-07-21T20:04:01.517-06:002009-07-21T20:04:01.517-06:00So Rand's saying though the government has tak...So Rand's saying though the government has taken money by force, we should nevertheless make distinctions between more appropriate and less appropriate uses of the money.Michael Labeithttp://coroners-bureau.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-6309835960266832522009-07-21T14:57:31.186-06:002009-07-21T14:57:31.186-06:00You're framing the question the wrong way.
At...You're framing the question the wrong way.<br /><br />At the end of "Apollo 11," Rand said the following:<br /><br />"<i>As far as 'national priorities' are concerned, I want to say the following: we do not have to have a mixed economy, we still have a chance to change our course and thus to survive. But if we do continue down the road of a mixed economy, then let them pour all the millions and billions they can into the space program. If the United States is to commit suicide, let it not be for the sake and support of the worst human elements, the parasites-on-principle, at home and abroad. Let it not be its only epitaph that it died paying its enemies for its own destruction. Let some of its lifeblood go to the support of achievement and the progress of science. The American flag on the moon—or on Mars, or on Jupiter—will, at least, be a worthy monument to what had once been a great country</i>."<br /><br />Before we could even get <i>close</i> to the enviable position of debating an end of the space program <i>for the right reasons</i>, we have to shift the public discourse away from the premise of, "How can the government get me some loot?" and towards the question, "How can I make sure the government protects my rights?"<br /><br />Until we get to that point, all demanding an end to the space program, specifically, will do is feed into the pressure group warfare of the mixed economy and have the funds wasted on something much less constructive (at best).<br /><br />In short, your question is premised on failing to see the war for the battle, and the wrong battle at that.<br /><br />If your time and desire to be involved for cultural change are limited to fighting against specific government measures, then there are plenty of worse ways to spend money looted from citizens that you could fight than something like Apollo 11.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-36361798981247254612009-07-21T12:40:13.304-06:002009-07-21T12:40:13.304-06:00I posed a question at "The Morality War"...I posed a question at "The Morality War" covering an issue you mention in this post. <br /><br />No one wishes to marginalize or underemphasize the intellectual rigor involved in designing a vessel that can reliably make the transit from earth to the moon and back. However, does the coercive nature of the financing of the Apollo missions tarnish the moon landings? <br /><br />In retrospect, if we could once again decide whether to:<br /><br />A) travel to the moon with taxpayer funds OR<br /><br />B) return the money to taxpayers and scrap the mission<br /><br />wouldn't the answer have to be the latter. I don't want give the impression that I'm trying diligently to put the kabash on man's innovation, but the question presents itself to us again: should we begin preparations to Mars? No doubt, a succesful landing on the red planet would yet again be a testament to the scientific acumen possessed by scientists. But upon landing on Mars the first thought in my head would not be the significance of man's inductive progress - it would be the negative socio-economic effects associated with a government run, taxpayer financed example of space adventurism. The same applies to the moon. I cannot shake an overall negative evaluation of the moon landings. In a different respect, the landings were a brilliant demonstration. But were they necessary?Michael Labeithttp://coroners-bureau.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com