Entry 896, on 2008-11-23 at 19:50:02 (Rating 3, Politics)
I recently read an article by Edward Hudgins of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C., which pushed the idea of privatising NASA. Before I go any further I've got to ask why are these places called think tanks? That's a misleading label in most cases - I would prefer a name like "pressure groups", or "groups for forwarding a particular philosophy or political agenda" - OK, I know - think tank is a lot more concise!
The thing about libertarians is that I agree with so much of what they say. In fact I think most people would. Who would disagree with the ideas of less bureaucracy, less intervention in the life of the average person, and more personal freedom? But the problem I see is their insistence on what they call a free market economy and private ownership of everything (or as much as possible).
The problem is that there is no such thing as a free market. The market is a human invention where some things are allowed and some aren't. I can build a factory which pollutes the air and kills people but I can't kill my competitors by using an assassin - what's the difference? I can sell some drugs, even if they don't work, but I can't sell illegal drugs even when they do. Why? I can use questionable business ethics to take my opponents resources but I can't directly steal them. In the end the market is just the result of a collection of arbitrary rules, most of which are designed to protect the people who complain so much about the rules existing!
So setting that aside, what about the idea of privatising an organisation making it more efficient? Well logically that can never be the case because in the classic model of capitalism a company must provide a service or make a product plus return the maximum possible return to its shareholders. A non-profit organisation can do the same core functions without the additional need to create a profit. Which is likely to be more efficient? I know this is a gross simplification (and depends on your particular definition of the word "efficient") but its a point worth considering.
I remember reading in a novel by libertarian author Michael Crichton (who I discussed in a recent blog entry "The Frankenstein Effect" from 2008-11-17) that most of the real innovation and discovery was coming form the private sector (not universities and government institutes) but there was no real evidence to back up this opinion. I regularly read a lot of science news, and in my own experience (which is admittedly anecdotal) I see that most of the really fundamental new stuff is coming from universities. Libertarians seem to think that if they repeat the great mantra of private ownership it will become true, but of course it won't.
I'm not saying that private companies have no place in our society - of course they have. What I am saying is that privatisation isn't an automatic fix for any problem (perceived or otherwise). For example, Hudgins criticises NASA for giving one of their early astronauts, John Glenn, a free seat on a future Shuttle launch. He claims it is just entertainment, and a way to draw attention from that agency's truly astronomical costs. Well private companies seem to indulge in cheap publicity tricks like this as a matter of course and I don't see libertarians complaining about that! Of course, they might say that's OK because its their own money they are using but is that really fair? The money in both cases comes from the people who pay for the service, whether its from a tax or a payment for an essential service makes little difference in the end except that the tax is probably a far more efficient way to gather the funding.
There are private companies entering into the new industry of space travel now but they are concentrating on the easy stuff. They aren't planning for the sort of capacity needed for Moon bases, missions to Mars, or space station component lifting. They are building on the hard work that NASA has already done. And they are making mistakes and destroying expensive hardware (although they haven't killed anyone yet). The fact is that most of the really hard work is done outside of private organisations because, despite all the rhetoric, private companies can't really take big risks with shareholders funds.
If we did what the libertarians wanted and privatised organisations like NASA we would stifle innovation and slow progress. I don't think that's what anyone really wants so why don't they just get real and back away from the hard line free market nonsense? I don't think they can because I think they have convinced themselves that its all true. One of the advantages of a philosophy which is never going to be implemented is that it can't be shown to be wrong. No one will ever implement a truly libertarian economy (we made a significant start here in New Zealand and it failed) so the groups supporting it are safe when they continue to insist that its a miracle cure. Its a miracle cure which has never been tested and one which logic indicates won't work. I think I would prefer to keep away from the lunatic fringe and continue with more pragmatic solutions!
It seems to me that NASA needs some competition to make it wake up and get innovative like it was when it was going to the Moon and competing with the USSR.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2008-12-07 at 18:55:35:
I'm not convinced that the competition model is always the best answer in this sort of situation - in fact I'm not convinced its ever the best answer. I remember seeing psychological studies (unfortunately I can't find the reference) showing that cooperative models often work better. There are many projects NASA handles which would have no interest to a commercial company, and these are often the most important ones.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE