Will space exploration usher about the end of freedom?
I spent a lot of time thinking about this recently; writing new material, reading books and binge watching TV shows.
If space exploration and planetary settlement is spearheaded by private industry (and partially paid for my Earth governments) there will employment contracts and confidentiality agreements, not a Constitution, dictating how those venturing off world life. Space and other worlds (moons and asteroids) would be equal to international waters, lawless places where might makes right and what happened is what whoever with that might say happened. Law will be what a corporation determines it to be. Tyrannical rule akin to saddam hussein could/would flourish as the food, water, communication and even the very air a person breathes is tightly regulated and can be withheld (under voluntary agreement of course) at the discretion of the company.
I contend that freedom in any meaningful capacity would be dead. The idea of Objectivism may be present in space but the practice, like freedom, like the individual and free will, would essentially be dead.
If space exploration and planetary settlement is spearheaded by private industry (and partially paid for my Earth governments) there will employment contracts and confidentiality agreements, not a Constitution, dictating how those venturing off world life. Space and other worlds (moons and asteroids) would be equal to international waters, lawless places where might makes right and what happened is what whoever with that might say happened. Law will be what a corporation determines it to be. Tyrannical rule akin to saddam hussein could/would flourish as the food, water, communication and even the very air a person breathes is tightly regulated and can be withheld (under voluntary agreement of course) at the discretion of the company.
I contend that freedom in any meaningful capacity would be dead. The idea of Objectivism may be present in space but the practice, like freedom, like the individual and free will, would essentially be dead.
I was in the Navy. I get what you mean. But at least on earth you have options, even if they are shitty ones.
Great question.
Mine is: Why would be get involved in a scheme where you can never go out and lay on a new mown lawn; never have a BBQ, never fish a small stream in the mountains; never sit on a terrace and watch the sunset over the mountains; never spend a day shooting guns off your back deck; never go cowboy dancing in the local saloon?
For those that would give up those small pleasures, I hope you enjoy it, but leave me out of it.
No one knows what happened in Roanoke to make them disappear, its a mystery. Stephen King, Storm of the Century?
Air was never concern for anyone. And easy or not, you could breathe, you could forage, you could hunt.
Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for a story with this theme.
I'll keep an eye out for your novel :)
When food depended on growing and storing it through the seasons, that required long term planning. Today you can decide on the spur of the moment to go to the grocery store, which in turn requires long term rational thought for a society of rational individualism and increased knowledge that makes grocery stores possible. A more technical society requires rational thought on a larger scale, anticipating and planning for future needs, not "woe is us, the Borg is inevitable". That includes taking into account and planning for emergencies, which does not mean a "primal state of existence". If someone takes being provided for for granted and leaves himself in a state where 30 seconds is long term planning it is his own default on his own life.
Actually, there's plenty of life that exists without rational thought and planning. Take progressives for instance. ;)
Seriously, though, life doesn't require long-term thought and planning. It is better with such, of course, but it is hardly a requirement. "Long-term" is a nebulous argument as well. If one is running out of air, thirty seconds is long-term planning! That's the reality of Maslow's Hierarchy - it accurately breaks down what can be rationally considered within a given time frame. Those who have their immediate needs met may begin to deal with issues of a less and less immediate nature.
The whole point of AJ's post is that we aren't used to having to deal with such a primal state of existence - one where the basics of life can never be taken for granted to allow us to deal with the "long-term". Property rights are important, but its pretty difficult to argue such without the air to voice one's opinions.
No one can live on earth without land, whether he owns his own plot, leases it in contractual arrangements, or visits others in mutual trade. Land is in moral principle no different than the air and water we require to survive. We are not ghosts; we live and act in a material world. The air in the atmosphere is not owned because it is for practical purposes unlimited, with no need for private ownership. Collectivists, and others who don't understand the need and purpose of property rights, also argue that owning land is "absurd".
I'm not asking for anything.
Load more comments...