Space blogger Rand Simberg has responded to my “Mission Worth It?” Simberg, by the way, is serious, knowledgeable, and creative. Whatever doubts I have about his plans, we’re fortunate to have him blogging on space–especially now. In general, Simberg downplays my point about the visionary fantasies of “space lovers.” But I think the utopianism of the space lovers is a critical issue. It’s true, as Simberg says, that we can’t definitively dismiss any vision until we actually try it. The other side of this coin is that the inherent uncertainties of space license the most questionable sort of speculation.

As I see it, the most dubious element in the space lovers’ hopes is the idea that space will turn into a sort of libertarian paradise. Space seems to serve as a secular heaven for many libertarians. The idea is that, as a vast frontier, space will nurture libertarianism, in something like the way the West nurtured libertarianism in America. I suspect this is exactly wrong. Precisely because space is so inhospitable to human habitation, it will not turn into a “libertarian” frontier. Settler families headed West could afford a wagon with relative ease. With all it’s barriers to human flourishing, space survival requires the sort of massive expenditures only governments can command. Libertarians downplay the extent to which government must provide the legal framework, institutional setting, and technical infrastructure within which individual liberty plays out. Since space demands more infrastructure, not less, it is ill suited to libertarianism. The overwhelming physical challenge of space also demands more human cooperation–”up there,” but especially “down here.” That is why space is still a government monopoly. Simberg and others seem to think that if government would only get out of the way, private enterprise could take over space. But I think government dominance of space is not some unfortunate stumbling block. Instead, it is inherent in the radical nature of the physical challenge of space, which is not comparable to space’s apparent analogies on Earth. That could certainly change in time–but not soon, and probably only slowly and partially.