"Airlock Despotism"]

Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 18:22:27 +0000

Monart Pon wrote (11/26):

> I recognize that the more unpredictable elements of your projection
> [of Space Settlement (11/21)]are the political, cultural, and
> philosophical -- which are just as crucial to the program's
> actualization.

Agreed. This brings up another topic related to any space settlement
requiring a closed-cycle life-support system and protection from a
deadly environment outside: can they be free societies?

The problem with a space settlement relates to what I call the Galley
Slave Theory of Collectivism: "We're all in the same boat, so we've
all got to pull together. We need somebody to be the Captain,
somebody to beat the drum, and somebody to hold the whip. And that
means you lot have to do what you're told for the good of the whole
crew."

In a contained environment, everyone's life depends on public
infrastructure--the hull of the station, its oxygen production and
waste-treatment systems, etc., and you can't just walk away. Travel
to and from such settlements is inherently controlled because docking
rings and airlocks are unavoidable chokepoints.

The relative lack of privacy lends itself to regimentation (such as
how loud you can play your music, what pets you can or can't have,
how many children you can have, etc.). It's easy to imagine
regulations on how much water you can use in a shower, etc. Whoever
controls the airlocks ultimately controls the society, even a very
large "country-sized" O'Neill colony.

How will a libertarian space settlement avoid creeping "airlock
despotism?"

P.T. Galt