I’ll Have One Moon, Sunny-Side Up, Hold the Government

From an article just published by William Cullerne Bown in New Scientist, I quote:

“LAST week, NASA bombed the moon. Or rather, it crashed its Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite into the moon’s south pole in a bid to discover reserves of water and other resources. “This was the latest in a veritable flurry of moon missions: between 2007 and 2011 there will have been eight: one from Japan, two from China, one from India, one from Russia and three from the US. “The race back to the moon has been prompted by the realisation that exploiting it may now be within reach. And it poses the question: who gets to use the moon’s recoverable resources, such as oxygen or water?”

This, looking into the future, has staggering ramifications. For the answer to Bown’s question should be any genuinely private interests who possess or can raise the capital to get there and put them to use – not governments, with their stolen tax revenues and war-making militaries.

Indeed, the last century has seen several governments – most predominantly those of Britain, Norway, and America – lay claim to various parts of Antarctica. And while those outposts are used for peaceful scientific research under international treaty, those same treaties prevent the use of antarctic resources for anything other than such. And, as above, they are all financed by taxes taken from people across the world at gunpoint.

But while Antarctica is a terrestrial body, it is merely a continent. The moon is a separate celestial body altogether. It will require more capital and technology to get there and stay there, granted. But once there, it is not only possible that there will be oxygen and water, but also metal ores and other raw materials useful for construction and other purposes. And since the moon is a very convenient, much lower gravity launching pad to the outer planets (and perhaps beyond), it also has obvious military potential. Place a few nukes on the moon (or even long-range conventional missiles) along with permanently manned bases, and you’re riding high in the global government power play.

Here’s another possible consideration: Ham radio operators and other communications systems have used the moon’s surface for years to bounce signals off of, turning it into a true natural satellite. Will future technologies be used by various governments to detect, track, and then tax these signal when terra luna is used for this purpose? Will only government vessels – in certain regions, or in all of them – be permitted to travel and land on the moon? The possibilities for scullduggery, of course, are nearly endless.

Again, would it not be both safer and better that the moon be colonized and its resources utilized by both pre-existing and cottage industries that form the entire basis of a voluntary free market. I’m thinking mining, scientific R & D, tourism – isn’t that a better lunar future than the violent monopolization of another world by governments and government-allied “crony capitalists”? Doesn’t the immense potential, or even necessity, of human space colonization demand that we solve our most serious social problems immediately by abolishing government?

Bown finishes his piece with this quote:

“When I put these ideas to David Parker, head of space science and exploration at the British National Space Centre, he called them Machiavellian. Perhaps he should recall that Machiavelli’s Prince is the ultimate guide to realpolitik.”

Yes, indeed, Mr. Bown. Yes indeed.