Into Space and Beyond Criticism

INTO SP ACE AND BEYOND CRITICISM THERE MUST BE millions of Americans who are extremely skeptical about our participation in the race to orbit men and balloons and electronic gadgets; who question the wisdom of putting astronauts on the moon; who see no sense in building unbelievably expensive apparatus to send messages into interstellar space to contact crea tures who may not even exist and, anyway, could not understand our message if they do-nor we their reply.1 And, if all the fantasy turned out to be true, the ex change of messages would take so long that the sender would not be alive to hear the reply! Yes, this fantastic business has undoubtedly generated an enormous amount of skepticism. But where is the criticism? Only now and then does someone take a sly poke at political spending gone C081 It's probably true that millions of persons, all through the ages, would have scoffed at anything new and different that might have come to their attention. What is different about the point under discussion is that it is not a privately developed and financed proj ect, but one which those who least want it are nonetheless co'mpelled to finance. 382 INTO SPACE AND BEYOND CRITICISM 383 mic. Why so much silent skepticism and so little overt criticism? To get at the answer, turn back a quarter cen tury to the New Deal.

Created in 1935 by Executive Order was the WPA the Works Progress Administration-a companion of NRA, AAA, CCC, FSA, HOLC, and many other socalled alphabetical agencies. Essentially, the WPA was a make work program, often referred to by its critics as "boon doggling." While there may have been few if any in stances of the unemployed put to work raking leaves across the road and back again, this is what it amounted to in the eyes of many citizens with a reputation for straight thinking. The point is, these nostrums were roundly and widely lampooned and ridiculed, their fal lacies widely understood and exposed. One can catch the spirit of criticism of the time from a jingle by Odgen Nash, "One from One Leaves Two": Higgledy piggledy, my black hen, She lays eggs for gentlemen. Gentlemen come every day To count what my black hen doth lay. If perchance she lays too many, They fine my hen a pretty penny; If perchance she fails to lay, The gentlemen a bonus pay.

Mumbledy pumbledy, my red cow, She's cooperating now. At first she didn't understand That milk production must be planned; She didn't understand at first She either had to plan or burst, But now the Government reports She's giving pints instead of quarts.

384 LEONARD E. READ Fiddle de dee, my next-door neighbors, They are giggling at their labors. First they plant the tiny seed, Then they water, then they weed, Then they hoe and prune and lop, Then they raise a record crop, Then they laugh their sides asunder, And plow the whole kaboodle under. Abracadabra, thus we learn, The more you create, the less you earn. The less you earn, the more you're given, The less you lead, the more you're driven, The more destroyed, the more they feed, The more you pay, the more they need, The more you earn, the less you keep, And now I lay me down to sleep. I pray the Lord my soul to take If some Soul Commission hasn't got it before I wake. 2 While the principle of the government boondoggle grew both in practice and adherents, and spawned mil lions upon millions of persons with a vested interest in its continuance, the prospect of it" overthrow was kept alive by the liveliness of the criticism. Be it noted, how ever, that lively and effective criticism is possible only when there is general familiarity with the subject, which was the case as long as the boondoggle remained earth bound.

But put the boondoggle into orbit, into outer space, and the problem is obscured. It is put out of mind, out side the realm of common sense and, thus, beyond effec2 Reprinted by special permission of the Saturday Evening Post. Copyright 1934 by the Curtis Publishing Company.

INTO SPACE AND BEYOND CRITICISM 385 tive criticism. Outer space is little known, and who can qualify as having worth-while opinions on wholly un familiar matters? Regardless of the depth of one's skepti cism, there is a natural tendency not to criticize those activities which involve abstruse matters clearly beyond one's ken. "Look who's talking!" is about all the non expert can expect to hear from listeners and readers. Such a discouraging prospect is enough to silence anyone who is skeptical of our space program. What, then, can a skeptic do? Well, he can ask questions, can't he? A Fair Question "What are these sorties into space to cost?" This is a fair question for the novice to ask, simply because there are no experts who might have a better right to ask it. Noone knows the cost, not even the President of the United States! Nor the Director of the Bureau of the Budget! Nor James ~. Webb, Administrator, National Aeronautdics and Space Administration!

To the question, "What will it cost to put three men on the moon?" -a pilot-plant project now under way in the over-all moon undertaking and one of many space projects our nation ishead-over-heels in-Mr. Webb re plied, "The range of 20 to 40 billion dollars is a reason able estimate."3 3 See U. S. News and & World Report, July 3, 1961, p. 58.

386 LEONARD E. READ Since when does a person know what he is talking about in fiscal matters whose idea of "a reasonable esti mate" is such that he can say, in effect, "Give or take 20 billion dollars"? Even one million dollars is beyond the power of most of us to conceive. And a thousand million ($1,000,000,000) surely is incomprehensible to nearly all of us. Roughly $1 every minute, day and night, since the birth of Christl Or look at it this way: Take an average sized American home (about 8,500 cubic feet), stuff every room as tightly as possible with brand new, crisp $1 biIls.4 There would be enough of the one billion dol lars left over to purchase 50,000 such homes at $15,000 each! And the difference between the low and high of our government official's "reasonable estimate" -20 bil lion dollars-would tightly stuff twenty homes and have enough left over to purchase 1,000,000 morel A Realistic Estin~ate?

Further, who ever heard of a governmental estimate that turned out to be realistic? The record reveals that a substantial multiplier is always in order if we are to reckon ultimate costs from original bureaucratic guessti mates. And, we must ask, what is the sense of three lunar inhabitants if it is not subsequently to locate on the moon another Cape Canaveral with its housing projects (pressurized housing?) and all of the other subsidiary 4 It takes 264 newly printed bills to make a stack one-inch thick. A vault containing 35,244 cubic feet is necessary to store only one billion such bills.

INTO SPACE AND BEYOND CRITICISM 387 paraphernalia? (An Associated Press release of August 2, 1961, refers to a government study of "some strange methods for sustaining life in a still stranger environ ment . . . including: insulated balloons and caves or tunnels .... protecting against solar radiation and the extreme temperatures ranging from 250 degrees in day light to 230 below zero in darkness. Boring machinery for digging tunnels and other equipment for building bases is expected to be operated by remote control by a crew still within the space ship.") Could the total wealth of the United States any more than begin to finance such a moon dream? Claims Ex.amined Let us now consider some of the claims made for this orbital program to which we as citizens are being rapidly committed. CLAIM: Military advantage. In answer to the question, "Is there any military ad vantage in going to the moon?" Mr. Webb replied, "Cer tainly."5 To the question, "In what way?" he added nothing to convince a lay skeptic. His explanation, like that of others, implies military advantage hut specifically we are left in the dark.

Few people dare to criticize any project, no matter how wild, if it carries the label "defense." Further, who among us can qualify as a lunar, military expert? Do 5 See U. S. News & World Report, July 3, 1961, p. 60.

388 LEONARD E. READ even the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff know any more about conducting warfare from the moon than any of us? Doubtless, they would be the first to confess their incompetence in this respect. Mr. Webb sheds some light on the subject when he admits it would take two and one-half to three days for a rocket to travel from the moon to the earth. Would not a modern atomic war with earth-launched missles be concluded before a moon rocket could reach our enemy? CLAIM: "To maintain its international prestige) the United States must match or better its competitor'S efJorts."6 Who is qualified to diagnose "international prestige"? This is pure collectivistic jargon. It has nothing to do with what a Swede or a Dane or an Italian will think of you or me or our compatriots considered individually, or how they will regard our ideals. It refers only to what the politicians of other countries think of our own politicians. Has international prestige become one of the new national goals? Are we as a collectivity to seek pres tige?-fame?-from among men? What has become of the idea that esteem is to be sought from a Higher Source?

This notion of international prestige sounds like what might be expected from the godless state. 6 This and the following quotes, unless otherwise specified, are taken from a brochure, SPACE Challenge and Promise, issued by Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc., 610 Shoreham Building, Washington, D. C. AlA, as it is called, is a trade associa tion whose members are contractors to the government for space hardware. An attempt is made in this attractive brochure to sum marize, in simple terms, the arguments favoring the federal govern ment's space program.

INTO SPACE AND BEYOND CRITICISM 389 Even if it be conceded that prestige is among our ulti mate goals, what competency has our bureaucracy dem onstrated in this respect? Since World War II, our po litical apparatus has spent well over 100 billion dollars in foreign loans, "Voice of America," and the like. When, in American history, have so many foreign politicians thought so little of our own political leaders as now? In any event, who has the competency to criticize this international prestige claim? For who of us can qualify as an authority in collective psychiatry? CLAIM: ((This space weather station can give forecasters on earth the complete information they <need to provide accurate weather information." Who can criticize this? For who is an expert meteorol ogist? Is there one? Strict attention to daily weather forecasts breeds doubt. Indeed, the meteorologists who impress this layman are those who know they know al most nothing about the earthly and cosmic forces which determine weather. These forces, like the mystery of the Universe itself, are so complex that they may never be unraveled by man. One thing for certain, it is not true that "a space weather station can give forecasters on earth the complete information they need to provide accurate weather predictions." However sincere this in accurate prediction, it offers the taxpayer little assurance about the accuracy of the predictions that are to grow out of it.

CLAIM: ((It is certainly within the realm of possibility that 7 once man has mastered accurate forecasting, he may 390 LEONARD E. READ be able to do something about changing the weather/' What man? Any private citizen? Indeed not! Who then? Obviously, a government man. If government could control the weather, what would be the nature of the control? Would not the control of weather follow the same pattern as government's control of income: "... from each according to ability, to each according to need?" That is, would not rain, for instance, be shifted from states with abundant moisture and poured on the thirsty states? Socialized weather, no less! Heaven forbid! According to bureaucratic claims, government has now relieved material insecurity. Acting on this wholly false assumption, bureaucrats are now suggesting that they can guarantee against celestial uncertainty. What next, little men?

No matter what the weather-rain, hail, sleet, snow, fog, heat, cold, or whatever-we should give thanks for its unpredictable variety. This is by way of expressing gratitude that God, not the government, is in command of it. CLAIM: ((One answer to the problem [justification of governmental space exploration expenditures] appears to be the communication satellite . ... Not only could they solve the cable problem, but also offer less expensive and more rapid overseas message transmission. In addi tion, they offer the possibility of long-awaited interna tional television." In the U.S.A., at least, communications-telephone, telegraph, teletype, wireless, radio, TV-have been priINTO SPACE AND BEYOND CRITICISM 391 vate undertakings, financed with private capital. No one of the socialized systems of other countries remotely ap proaches our own in the excellence of its service. Yet, successful as our entrepreneurs have been, they (short sightedly, for certaint see no point in criticizing experi ments in satellite communication as long as the enor mous expense is met not from their own funds but from the daily bread of all the people. Space research "for free"!

Remove from the critic's role these people who know something about communications, electronics, and the like and who remains to raise questions? Only those of us with no more qualification than skepticism! If bouncing messages off satellites is to be "less ex pensive" than cable transmission, as is claimed, then, pray tell, why is this not as appropriate a place for pri vate capital as is transoceanic cable? Do not profits de rive from cutting costS?8 Or, is this only "less expensive" after the taxpayers have orbited the satellites, that is, have contributed all of the capital outlay? Conceivably, one of these days, the political "public" will claim com munications to be its business. That day will mark the 7 Private manufacturers face many dangers in becoming con tractors to the government for space hardware. For example, cost plus contracts, the payment of fantastic salaries for certain techni cal skills and other wasteful habits tend to unfit the manufacturer for com'mercial competition. The free market requires that we keep lean, hard, and alert or get out.

8 For an explanation of this see "From Whence Come Profits?" by John Chamberlain, and "Incompetent Employers" by Francis Amasa Walker, The Freeman, October, 1959.

392 LEONARD E. READ socialization [nationalization] of this great American industry. Why do the claimants make reference only to expen sive transoceanic cable? During the past few weeks, I have been on the telephone from Tokyo to Seattle and from New York to Buenos Aires. In each instance the conversation was clear and it took less than 1/50th of a second for our voices to reach each other. These talks were via wireless, not over cable. Would satellites be clearer or quicker or cheaper? These messages would be by wireless, wouldn't they? If the satellite route is su perior, why does not private enterprise pick up the ball and the entire bill that goes with it? The answer is crys tal clear: The market at this time does not warrant such a venture. CLAIM: "1'''here is also the navigation satellite. Placed in a precise orbit and equipped with a radio transmitter, it could provide position reports of high accuracy for ships and aircraft."

Most skeptics of government's cosmic ventures know nothing of navigation, thus, how can they criticize this one, authoritatively? During recent years I have traveled more than a mil lion miles by air and in every instance the aircraft flew directly to its destined airport. Not lost for a moment, even when the destination was tiny Guam in the middle of the vast Pacific! Is the government warranted in spending billions of our individual incomes to improve on this state of perfection? Indeed, how is it possible to make precision more precise?

INTO SPACE AND BEYOND CRITICISM 393 CLAIM: "World mapping is still another area where space research can provide benefits." Few of us know anything about cartography, so how can we competently criticize mechanisms expensively blasted into orbit to do global charting? The proponents add, "... large portions of the earth cannot be precisely charted for lack of an accurate starting point A satellite can provide the needed base line " What portions? The areas where people live appear to be well enough charted. For what waste areas is all of this un believably expensive precision needed? CLAIM: "The main goal of space research is knowledge." This claim may be in error. While it is next to impos sible to grade motivational influences, there are several influences that suggest themselves as more powerful than the quest for knowledge: What about the folks high in the bureaucracy who believe that the American economy can best be run by the federal government?9 Is there a quicker way to make the transition from private enterprise to the omnipotent state than to take from individuals the choice as to how the fruits of their own labor shall be expended and to collectivize these choices in the central government?

What promises to accomplish this faster than the multi billion dollar space program? 9" •••a panel of seven economists, including Professor John K. Galbraith of Harvard, stated: 'We reject the notion that govern ment governs best which governs least. The federal government is our only instrument for guiding the economic destiny of the coun try.' "-From First National City Bank Monthly Letter, August 1959, p. 90.

394 LEONARD E. READ Or, what about the powerful political figures and the academicians who believe that government spending is the way to prosperity? Or, what about the federal government's commitment to "full employment"? Doesn't the space program merely put the WPA boondoggle theory into enlarged practice and into orbit? Or, what about the contractors who are gaining a vested interest in the lush space hardware business? Or, finally, what about the scientists and the techni cians who are "having a ball," who can indulge their wildest fancies without restraint, who can play Jules Verne and Buck Rogers in this sky's-the-limit game and without having to give a moment's thought as to where the money is coming from? Now, let us concede the dubious assertion that "the main goal of research is knowledge." Whose knowledge are these folks talking about? Mine? Yours? The extent to which it is yours or mine can be accurately determined by how much of our income we would voluntarily con tribute were these projects on the open market. In my own case, there would be no contribution at all, for many other forms of knowledge have a higher call on my income than does space knowledge.

Obviously, there are other forms of knowledge that are important, but have no appeal to me personally. Each to his own bent. We live by these varied specializations. But that form which I elect to pursue is mine to reap the benefit from and to pay for. This goes equally for our space scientists and technicians. If they say they canINTO SPACE AND BEYOND CRITICISM 395 not possibly gain the knowledge to put three men on the moon without coercively taking the income of those of us who have no interest in such a venture, then I say leave the moon unpopulated. If they say they are doing this for my own good, then I say they aren't God and, therefore, they know less than I when it comes to deter mining my good. Forms of knowledge are infinite in variation. But some forms should have a priority over other forms. One of the most important forms of knowledge is to know' what the rights of others are. Without this knowl edge the other forms become dangerous. For nothing could be worse than a society composed of Ph.D.'s, all of whom are burglars or coercionists. Better that such "tradesmen" know nothing than so much!

The knowledge sought in the space program is financed by coercion. It is a contradiction of the moral law: Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you. It is a contradiction of the eco nomic law: The value of anything is what someone will offer you for it in willing exchange. A Destructive Course The boondoggle has been orbited and is, as I have tried to demonstrate, very close to being beyond effective criticism. Lacking criticism, there is no restraint against astronomical government spending except the inability on the part of our bureaucrats to spend faster than now. To say the least, they are hustling as best they can! In 396 LEONARD E. READ this course lies the destruction of our economy and in its wake a general insecurity and an irreparable stunt ing of all useful knowledge. As I see it, only two areas remain for telling criticism: the moral and the economic. We are hopelessly lost in the area of stratospheric debate and, if any success is to attend our efforts, the discussion must be brought back to earthy and familiar territory. Otherwise, the tech nicians and their sacred science will cancel out our voices with their highly specialized jargon. 10 A Reasonable Point of Reference Of course, no discussion such as this can make sense unless we agree upon or at least have some understand ing of each other's premise, datum line, point of refer ence, goal, objective~ What are we anchored to as the purpose of earthly existence? Is it lunar supremacy? In ternational prestige? Scientism? A collectivism more thorough than that which headquarters at the Kremlin?

Rulership of the world? Gross national product? Political people control?l1 Or, what? 10 With tongue in cheek, Dr. Warren Weaver writes: "Perhaps we should turn the world over to this superbreed. Perhaps they could, if properly supported, really liberated, and put in charge perhaps they could solve all problems of human relations, of eco nomic stability, of international peace, and of the good life. Per haps they should design not only the churches, but the creeds also. Perhaps the best music and the loveliest poetry will in a short time, come out of a machine."-From "The Imperfections of Sci ence," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society for Octo ber 17, 1960. 11 For an excellent explanation of why price and other economic controls are nothing but people control, see "Price Control Is Peo ple Control" by Dean Russell, p. 173 of this volume.

INTO SPACE AND BEYOND CRITICISM 397 Without question, one or more of the above must be among the goals of those who are bent on putting the boondoggle into orbit. At least, such projects are con sistent with goals of this sort.l 2 There are among us, however, those who believe in (I) the primacy and supremacy of an Infinite Conscious ness, (2) the expansibility of the individual conscious ness, and (3) the immortality of the individual human spirit. Acting on these assumptions, they reason with con sistency that no objective can logically be superimposed on or stand in the way of the emergence of the individ ual human spirit; there should be no inhibition against the expansion of the individual human consciousness in to as near a harmony as possible with Infinite Con sciousness. Self-realization, that is, the realization of those creative potentialities peculiar to each personality, is the prime goal above which there can be no other.

Consistent with this individualistic philosophy of life is the belief that men are endowed by their Creator not by the state or any collective-with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as each can find it. This is a spiritual concept. It is also political because it denies the state as the endower of rights. And, too, it is economic for, if a person has a right to life, it follows that he has a right to sustain life, the sustenance of life being the fruits of one's own labor. 12 For the most flagrant attempt to present collectivistic goals for this country, see Goals for Americans, being a Report of the Presi dent's Com'mission on National Goals. Prentice Hall, Inc., 1960. 372 pp.

398 LEONARD E. READ The economic precept that consistently fits this way of life is willing exchange as distinguished from unwilling exchange-the market value of any good or service being what men will willingly exchange for said good or serv ice. This theory is incompatible with the coercive prac tice of taking the fruits of one's labor to satisfy someone else's compassionate instincts or someone else's interpre tation of what is for one's own good or for someone else's joyous flights into space. I3 A moment's reflection will reveal that willing exchange is the application of the Golden Rule to economic affairs. If we will take note of the ideas issuing from Ameri can pulpits prior to the writing of the Declaration of Independence; if we will reread Madison's account of our Constitutional Convention; and if we will again peruse The Federalist Papers, we will observe that the whole case for America was built around the rights of the in dividual; in short, justice. Among men pursuing such an end, the American miracle followed as a consequence.

Attention to moral principles brought economic bless ings in its wake. Inattention to moral principles must bring economic disaster. We wqn our case in those days with the moral argu ment. It appears more than likely that we can save our case only with the moral argument. 13 This is not to deny but to assert that government's role is to perform the defensive function. Government, however, cannot be defender and predator at once. For the author's ideas as to how much and why government should be limited, see Government: An Ideal Concept. Irvington, N. Y.: Foundation for Economic Edu cation, Inc., 149 pp. $1.50 paper; $2.00 cloth.