I just ran across this (five-year-old) post of mine that seems relevant to the recent discussion (which has a fascinating discussion by Carl Pham in comments on the nature of law, dictatorships and the state):
As a comment outside the context of the debate, Dr. Kurtz’ position is one shared by many, but the point is not that space is by its nature a libertarian utopia, any more than (and yes, I know he dislikes the analogy, but that doesn’t make it invalid) were the Americas two and a half centuries ago. Yet somehow we created a form of government here previously unseen in the history of the world, that was quite libertarian in philosophy (certainly much more so than either major party today).
From the standpoint of forming new societies, the point of settling space is that it’s a tabula rasa, and that many different groups and ideologies will find room there to do social experimentation. This is a factor that is independent of technology. Yes, cooperation will be required, and perhaps even laws, but there’s nothing intrinsically unlibertarian about that. Ignoring teleological arguments about our duty to be the vessels that bring consciousness to the universe, this is to me the greatest value of space–an ongoing large petri dish in which groups of like-minded people can continue to seek improvements on society, unconstrained by existing governmental strictures that are now dominant on this planet.
There’s some good discussion in comments there as well.
Assuming that space colonization resembles the O’niell scenario, it is best to think of space colonies as city-states much like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are fairly libertarian in that they have reasonably low tax rates and minimal regulation of business activities. Of course Singapore is well-known for its social engineering attempts as well as its mandatory savings scheme. Hong Kong is pretty much libertarian except for housing, which is completely “owned” by the government.
I see no reason why a space colony cannot be as libertarian as Hong Kong.
Until and unless we develop some really cheap method of access to space — some science-fictional “drive” that reduces the energy needed to reach orbit to essentially the potential energy difference, and that’s cheap enough for large numbers of people to buy it — that sort of thing is just a pipe dream.
If spaceships cost billions, governments and quasi-governments (huge corporations, e.g.) will be the only ones with access. If a spaceship capable of going to, say, Mars costs about like a Gulfstream, then you’ll get the variety of social structures you’re anticipating.
Regards,
Ric
Boeing jumbo-jets and Pacific super-tankers are pretty expensive too, but I can get a ticket on them any time I like. The cost of the rocket matter doesn’t matter much compared to the cost of fuel & operations. And rocket fuel is cheap. Operational costs are subject to kaizen improvement – in the hands of the private sector.
I agree with Kurt that O’Neil cylinders (and even outposts on the Moon or Mars) will function as city-states and maintain economic efficiency once they become established. I believe that smaller states run more efficiently as a rule because there is less economic surplus in the system for special interests to feed off of. The US Farm Lobby or German Labor Union would bankrupt a Hong Kong inside a decade, so they’re creation is not tolerated.
The issue of special interests attaching themselves to the State is exactly why new frontiers are often needed to establish more libertarian societies. Peaceful revolutions that sweep away all the old guard simply don’t happen – it’s either have a nice Cultural Revolution or move out to the wide open spaces. Since there are no wide open spaces on land any more, those with a desire to seek them must look to orbit.
Although, given the current costs of reaching orbit, and the difficulties in living there, I’m surprised there isn’t more interest in SeaStedding. The open ocean is much more hospital than LEO.
Rocket fuel is cheap but until someone is willing to put up the billions necessary to develop low cost access to space, O’Neil cylinders will remain a utopian fantasy.
Boeing jumbo-jets and Pacific super-tankers are pretty expensive too, but I can get a ticket on them any time I like.
Because you only use them a small fraction of the time. If you lived in space, you’d be using the facilities there 24/7.
Supertankers are also quite cheap, btw, per pound
(You can get tickets on Supertankers?)
Of course space transportation costs must come down in order for space development to happen. Just how do you think this will happen? By the emergence of a competitive industry with players that compete on cost, or by the essential monopoly of a government agency, where there is no price competition? This is really a no-brainer.
Yup. Pretty 19th Century, eh?