Futuof Space Colonization (And why do we always keep going into politics and economics?)

People often claim that democratic governments cannot sustain long term
commitments. However, the data doesn't support that. The U.S. and it's
democratic allies (along with some dictatorial allies) maintained a
successful 40 year cold against the Soviet Union. The U.S. also
maintained a century long policy of westward conquest ending with the
political unification of much of North America.

As Churchill once said, democracy is the worst form of government,
except for the other ones.

On Wednesday, May 29, 2002, at 05:34 PM, Ravenart@... wrote:

>
> In a message dated 5/29/02 6:50:32 PM, omni@... writes:
>
> << Governments have trouble looking
>
> past the
>
>> next election so we'd have some problems.
>
>>
>
> Only democratic governments. In China, for instance, I would guess that
> the
>
> policy for the ongoing space program will last as much as the current
>
> leadership of the country - and that duration is not limited by
> elections. >>
>
> That is right. There is a new book called Democracy: The God that
> Failed by
> a political economist Hans Hermann Hoppe in which he compared the
> democracy
> and kingship. The author is a free market anarchist-paleoconservative
> from
> Germany, so he dosn't support any of them. I hasn't read it but I has
> followed the discussion via book review. Beyond is a review by a
> paleoconservative. For the record, I am individualist and free market
> anarchist.
>
> ===============
> No-Think Nation VI: Destroying the West with Political Correctness
> By Paul Craig Roberts
> (http://www.vdare.com/roberts/no_think6.htm)
>
> Does democracy undermine a countrys future by shortening the
> time-preference
> of rulers? Does racial diversity produce conflict? Are Americas two
> greatest strengths in fact the countrys two greatest weaknesses?
>
> In an important new book, Democracy: The God That Failed political
> economist
> Hans Hermann Hoppe makes the case that democracy causes rulers to use
> policy
> for their short-term gains at the expense of the long-term welfare of
> the
> country.
>
> A king or hereditary line of rulers has a long-term view, because he
> and his
> heirs have a proprietary interest in the country. Although all kings
> will not
> be well-informed or in possession of good judgment, their proprietary
> interest causes hereditary rulers to pay attention to the repercussions
> of
> their actions on the economic, social and cultural strength of their
> country.
>
> A democracy, on the other hand, is ruled by temporary and
> interchangeable
> caretakers, who have no proprietary interest in the country. Their
> ability to
> exploit the country to their advantage is limited to their uncertain
> term of
> office. The results are shortsighted or present-oriented policies, which
> benefit the office holder at the long-term expense of the country.
>
> The longer democracy exists, the more damage will be done to law,
> property,
> culture, family, and moral values by the musical chair system of
> rotating
> rulers guided by short-term interest. As redistribution expands, the
> incentive for businessmen, judges, and consumers to take a long-term
> view is
> systematically reduced. Business time horizons shrink to three months,
> saving
> rates fall and debt levels rise as shortsighted rule reduces government
> to
> income and wealth confiscation.
>
> The prevailing incentive for citizens becomes to over-consume income
> and to
> be a net debtor, as wealth is targeted for exploitation both by
> government
> and lawyers.
> Not a cheerful analysis. Before dismissing it, sit back and make your
> list of
> government policies that take a long-term view to actually promote the
> general welfare. In the past 102 years, only two come readily to mind:
> President Reagans supply-side policy, which cured stagflation by
> overthrowing Keynesian short-term demand management, and President
> Reagans
> decision to abandon containment and actively work to hasten the fall
> of
> the Soviet Union.
>
> An honest look at democracys great victories shows them to be
> unmitigated
> disasters. The Civil Rights Act destroyed freedom of conscience,
> voluntary
> association, and equality in law, replacing it with status-based
> privileges
> from the feudal past. Busing and federal aid destroyed public
> education. The
> Great Society spending programs eroded family and encouraged public
> dependency.
> The New Deal destroyed accountable law by forcing Congress to delegate
> lawmaking power to unelected federal bureaucrats. The Social Security
> Act
> substituted an intergenerational Ponzi scheme, which is entirely
> dependent on
> favorable demographics, for individual saving. The Federal Reserve Act
> gave us
> the Great Depression. American entry into W.W.I, which was to make the
> world
> safe for democracy, resulted in Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.
>
> Yet, all these disastrous policies greatly benefited the politicians who
> inflicted them.
> When democracy is mixed with racial and cultural diversity, the
> combination
> of short time horizons with internal conflict maximizes weakness,
> regardless
> of accumulated scientific and technological skills.
>
> In another important recent book, Conflicts Explained by Ethnic
> Nepotism,
> Scandinavian scholar Tatu Vanhanen argues that group conflict is
> biologically
> or racially based.
>
> Professor Vanhanen constructs an Index of Ethnic Heterogeneity, [RTF] a
> measure of ethnic, tribal, racial, linguistic and religious diversity,
> for
> every country in the world with a population larger than one million.
> He then
> constructs an Index of Ethnic Conflict [RTF] and finds a strong
> correlation
> between the scores of the two indexes.
> In our world of politically correct scholarship, it is almost
> obligatory for
> sociologists to assume that the source of conflict is oppression or
> injustice. Prof. Vanhanen dismisses these explanations as worn-out
> Marxist propaganda.
>
> Conflict, he concludes, comes from ethnic nepotism. It is natural to
> the
> human species to favor relatives over people who are unrelated to us.
> Extending this principle, people care more for those genetically
> related to
> them than for others. Of all chasms that separate people, race is the
> hardest
> to bridge.
>
> Multiracial or multitribal states break up, because assimilation across
> racial boundaries is rare.
>
> The only solution to the conflict is secession and separation.
>
> Professor Vanhanen notes that the belief that racial diversity is a
> strength
> is limited to Western European countries, the U.S. and Canada. The
> belief is
> so obviously at odds with the experience of the rest of the world that
> only
> people brainwashed by political correctness can believe it.
>
> By infusing themselves with massive racial diversity, the countries of
> the
> West are ceasing to be nation-states and are planting seeds of future
> conflict without precedent in world history.
>
> Nonthinking civilizations are doomed. The weakness of Western
> intellectual
> thought is apparent when the entire edifice can be challenged by two
> books.
> Is the West too politically correct to free itself from the black hole
> of
> No-Think?
>
> Paul Craig Roberts is the author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How
> Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name
> of
> Justice.
> COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
> May 28, 2002
>
> ===============
>
> Carl E. Mullin
> visionary artist and entrepreneur
> homo asteralis
> ravenart@...m
> www.ravenartstudio.com
> "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be
> one,
> He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded
> Fear."
> ----Thomas Jefferson
>

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html