Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site qantel.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!intelca!qantel!gabor From: gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Libertarians in Space Message-ID: <446@qantel.UUCP> Date: Sun, 2-Jun-85 01:51:19 EDT Article-I.D.: qantel.446 Posted: Sun Jun 2 01:51:19 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 3-Jun-85 04:30:56 EDT Reply-To: gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) Organization: MDS Qantel, Hayward, CA Lines: 28 JoSH , in his Arpanet digest (V5 #23), discusses space colonization as follows: >I myself am personally very gung-ho on space colonization, to the >extent of being willing to spend several thousand dollars to further >its cause over the next decade or two (this doesn't come to more >than most serious hobbies). However, I'll be damned if I'll give it >to a political entity (read: any organization in which voting occurs). I find this a very revealing glimpse of the libertarian mind in action. The ostensible logical basis of libertarian opposition to government is the non-coercion principle. What JoSH's quote shows is the presence of a much stronger emotional and theological objection to the political sphere per se, even in cases where coercion is really not part of the picture (we are talking about the by-laws of a voluntary organization, not the government of space colonies). Why is it that political transactions are a BAD THING whereas market transactions are GOOD THINGS? I can only speculate but my guess is that political transactions seem inherently impure, involving parliamentary nonsense, emotionalism, compromises and distasteful tradeoffs between logically unrelated demands of interest groups. Market transactions, on the other hand, are purely technical and are apparently amenable to cold analysis. Which is why libertarianism (a fringe group, really) seems to loom so large in engineering circles. ----- Gabor Fencsik {dual,nsc,hplabs,intelca,proper}!qantel!gabor