Recently, the argument has been raging over whether or not we (The United States) actually landed on the moon on the 20th of July, 1969 (precisely 40 years, and one day, ago). Was it a hoax? Was it real? Was it just a conspiracy by the U.S. Government in order to further Cold War interests, and meet John Kennedy\'s call for a man on the moon before the end of the decade? Or, was it a genuine achievement by NASA that marked a major point in American (and human) history?
Unfortunately, all of this debate and speculation has ignored the most key question regarding this incident...

Who the hell cares?

Let us first examine the reasons we wanted to go to the moon in the first place. Of course there\'s the Soviet Empire, already ahead of the game by sending up the first satellite (Sputnik 1), and it was making the good old U S of A look bad. We had to do something. We had to restore hope, and pride in the populace. We had to bring the Nation together to achieve something greater than sending the first satellite into space. Basically, the Government needed to reassert it\'s legitimacy with a little grand-standing.

So, John F. Kennedy, in 1961, promised the crowd at Rice stadium that he\'d put a man on the moon before the 60\'s were up. And, according to the Governments official story... we did. What is supposedly accomplished was A) We beat the Russians, B) We spurred our Nationalist spirit, and C) We made a scientific accomplishment formerly thought impossible. I am only partially sympathetic to the last reason, the first two I couldn\'t care less about.

Of course NASA benefited greatly from this spectacle. Thousands of Americans huddled around their black and white television tubes to watch Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin step off the Lunar Module onto the surface of our moon. Every kid wanted to be an Astronaut. Americans thought of NASA as equal in heroism to the Military branches. The Government funded it\'s organization\'s projects with increased enthusiasm. So we took more trips to the moon, we started building a space station, and now there\'s even talk of going to Mars.
How amazing that man can put his mind to create something as magnificent as a Rocket, that can propel human beings into the outer reaches of deep space... and live (for the most part). How brave. How endearing. How incredibly pointless.

Essentially, on the historic day of July 20th, 1969, thousands of families sat staring at a box in order to watch a couple of over-paid beauracrats take a stroll on a white rock via millions of their hard earned dollars.

Could this money have been put to better use? Perhaps dozens of starving families could have eaten for years. Maybe hundreds of houses could have been built for the homeless in the streets. Or, we could have gone to the Moon... who knows how this money could have been spent. The real question, is how.

There are only two options really... voluntarily and coercively. People did not (and probably, if given the opportunity, would not have) voluntarily relinquished their funds to watch a couple of guys dressed in weird looking white suits and glass helmets do some stunts on a giant boulder billions of miles away while they watched a low-frequency transmission from their living rooms.

If the people were not robbed of their Income, as well as other forms of taxation, they probably wouldn\'t have paid to put a man on the moon. Of course I could be wrong. Maybe, if they had the ability to choose, they would have seen the benefit of building a rocket to shoot a random guy miles into the air until they reached the pale orb we can see on exceptionally clear nights. But, more than likely, they would have realized the lack of benefit in doing such a stunt, and instead spent their money on more prescient things.

They might have spent it on food, or clothes, or automobiles, or charity, or religious functions, or perhaps new inventions and innovations might have come into being with all the wealth confiscated by the IRS and handed over to the astro-brains at NASA. It\'s amazing how much more responsibly people will use money when they know it\'s theirs, and how irresponsibly people use it when they know it\'s not (especially when it\'s stolen, and easily replenished in like manner).

All the millions (think before inflation) of dollars blown on sending a man to the moon, and all the subsequent projects and missions, has seemingly led to nothing of actual benefit for mankind. Has it reduced crime? Has it improved the conditions of poverty and starvation? Has it helped cure diseases? Indeed the only side benefit of much of NASA\'s research is that the Military discovers new and inventive ways to kill people.

When people can keep their own money, and can decide how to spend it, they will make more responsible choices. They will make more beneficial choices towards their own betterment. Even a charity organization, or perhaps a scientific/aeronautic organization devoted to sending people into Space, that collects it\'s funds voluntarily, must serve the public interest in order to continue it\'s funding. If people do not find it\'s goals necessary or beneficial, it will not receive anything.

Beauracracies, on the other hand, don\'t need to serve the public interest in order to thrive. They need only the ability to receive stolen funds (tax money) and have pure monopolistic control on all their endeavors (as does NASA). They are free to waste and splurge all they want. If they are unsuccessful, oh well... there\'s no competition, they will receive their funding regardless (even if it is decreased by certain amounts if they do not follow political interests). In this case, rather than serving public interests, they serve political interests instead. And the question of whether the goal of the organization is even necessary is never addressed. We all assume that NASA is out for the Nation\'s best interests. We all assume with childish faith that the Government\'s programs are always beneficial to us. We never doubt for a moment the great accomplishment of sending hunks of metal into the vast nothingness of outer-space.

Of course Space would be explored on the free market... but in actually beneficial ways. Satellites would still be needed to give us Cable, Cellular, and Internet services. Private companies would send them up (and repair them) as needed and demanded by customers. If it is scientifically prescient to send a man to the moon, or to mars, or to build a giant space-station... it will be done. If not, then why should we do it at all. The free market (the voluntary decisions of consumers, entrepreneurs, and laborers in absolute liberty to trade, associate, and make contracts) will ultimately lead to the most necessary functions being utilized, and the least necessary functions going under.

Many argue that space-exploration would not survive in a free-market setting. Maybe they\'re right. And if they are right, then all the more reason to disband NASA. For if it would not continue on the free market, then it is not a necessary function to the public interest and therefore should not exist at all.
If you deem space-exploration a noble cause, then donate to it, start an organization for that particular goal.

The difference is how you receive your funds. On the free market you must attain them voluntarily, and you must prove your goal worthy in order to do it. With the Government, stealing is necessitated to reach those ends. Whether people deem the goal worthy or not does not matter, for extortion and monopoly is the way of the State.

Would I like to see the first man on Mars in my lifetime? Sure. As long as it is done so voluntarily and peacefully... I see no harm in the endeavor. But if it is not a necessary cause, if there are more important things for which the funds should go, then let it be. If Mars exploration holds any benefit to mankind, we will go. If not... then it doesn\'t matter.
Either way, theft and monopoly (as it is with NASA) is neither necessary nor justified. It is just another evil of the State to further it\'s ends.

Whether we put a man on the moon or not, 40 long years ago, doesn\'t really matter. NASA still spent the same amount of money (whether to do it, or to fake it). And for what? To show up the Russians? To instill Patriotism? All worthless endeavors. Was it really for science and exploration? Fine. But let it be done voluntarily and peacefully, without the involvement of the State.
Whether a hoax or reality, the Apollo 11 mission represents one thing... tax dollars ill-spent for a massive spectacle that did nothing to benefit mankind or lead to it\'s betterment. Sure, it was entertaining. And I\'m sure the Government (and NASA) loved all the blind support that followed. But it was nothing more than an astronomical (pun totally intended) waste of wealth and time.

The space-craft that landed was dubbed Apollo 11. Apollo, as any Greek mythology expert can tell you, was the Greek God of medicine, art, poetry, etc. What irony is it that all these things were sacrificed to pay for an absolutely pointless mission which involved a ship by the same name.

The lines that should have been said, when taking the first steps onto the lunar surface, are: "That\'s one insignificant step for man, one gigantic bill for the taxpayers back home."


- Justin T. Buell