"Airlock Despotism"]

P.T. Galt wrote,

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

I think that the question is ill-posed. It is hard for me to imagine
space settlements that exist just for the sake of having large numbers of
people living in space. Rather, people will begin to live in space when
there is a need for workers to be regularly onsite at some money-making
venture. For example, there will be workers needed to construct and
operate an orbital hotel/resort. The condition of life for workers in an
orbital hotel/resort might resemble the living conditions aboard a
contemporary cruise ship. There might be worker habitations for workers
building SPSs or other money-making ventures; these settlements might
resemble "company towns" such as coal-mining towns. Now, neither cruise
ships nor company mining towns are likely to be thought of as libertarian
paradises, but there are plenty of historical precedents for such types of
worker settlements, so we do have some notion of how they will operate.

It's tough for me to imagine what kinds of "space settlements" might
appertain after space industrialization is well-established. Almost any
prediction I'd make would likely be wrong. I always chuckle when I read
some space book whose last two chapters are entitled something like,
"Journerys to the Outer Solar System" and "To the Stars". Such things
will not happen in my lifetime --- there's enough resources within 3 AU of
Sol to keep us busy for the rest of my life and my children's lives.

Ron
******

Monart Pon
12/05/01 02:10 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: Space Settlers , Space Studies Institute
, Star_Ship
cc:
Subject: [spacesettlers] [Fwd: [Starship_Forum] "Airlock Despotism"]

Subject: [Starship_Forum] "Airlock Despotism"
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 18:22:27 +0000
From: "P.T. Galt"
Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

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