[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

A) Ineffective? Are you aware of how much potential a moon base would have for the advancement of science and for the advancement of space colonization?

B) If we intend to move deeper and deeper and explore the solar system (let alone the galaxy), then we're going to have to start somewhere, and the first step is establishing a base out there on a place other than Earth. The moon, being the closest thing to us, is the first logical place to start.

A) In today's world, no.
B) Let's start when it is economically viable. NASA is not a good start. Neither is any other government space agency. When colonizing the moon or any planet or any extraterrestrial body becomes profitable, it's fine. But as long as said government agencies can't send people to the moon or whatever without it costing billions of dollars that we will never recoup by any government initiative, no it is not good.

Private industry will reach into space when the time is right. We can pursue space exploration without needlessly draining finite resources. When they do reach into space they will need to be monitored and regulated to some degree. That is the job of their customers and to a lesser extent; the government.

Private industry has a knack for filling a niche when it is most appropriate. As long as competition is preserved and government and industry do not collude, private ventures can be much more efficient than government in any enterprise. Consider it a "go with the flow" approach if you will. By contrast, government is a hammer, a hammer that often does not understand what it is hammering at. The very nature of private enterprise is that it cannot exist in a competitive market without being efficient. Please, spare me any arguments about monopolies. In an educated society where public opinion is the most potent political force and the market is truly free, monopolies cannot exist in the form we recognize them in. Said monopoly would be dissolved at the hands of angry customers, laborers, and political activists by a truly democratic vote.

Of course,we do not live in an "educated" society. We live in a government educated society, where people expect "big brother" to look after them.

I know you did not mention it, but to forestall the inevitable argument that government will smehow properly distribute GDP tax revenue appropriately, I will say what I often say to liberals and big-government activists; where are the saints that you will get to run this government and its' programs? How will they be different from ordinary people who occasionally (and in some cases, consistently) resort to despicable methods to further their own advancement at the cost of others' advancement, livelihood, and even lives?
It cannot be done. One cannot control human nature any more than one can control nature itself, for the time being. The key is to harness humanity's destructive nature and turn it into a force that promotes order. Free and fair trade, regulation by the consumer and the market. No one willingly takes part in a harmful exchange of ideas or goods. I admit I do not have all the answers, but we have the solution, we just need to find a way to arrive at it, and government is not the answer.