Found It
In the comments section of my post about the essay comparing democracy and the free market Darwin used the example of the government developing space exploration technology as a way of showing how government can innovate. I argued that it’s unclear just how effective this public endeavor was because it was likely there were regulation laws choking the private industries ability to develop that technology during the same span of time. Searching Wikipedia I found this in Private Space flight section.
From the beginning of the Shuttle program until the Challenger disaster in 1986, it was the policy of the United States that NASA be the public-sector provider of U.S. launch capacity to the world market.[3] Initially NASA subsidized satellite launches with the intention of eventually pricing Shuttle service for the commercial market at long-run marginal cost.
On October 30, 1984, United States President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Commercial Space Launch Act [4]. This enabled an American industry of private operators of expendable launch systems. Prior to the signing of this law, all commercial satellite launches in the United States were limited to NASA’s Space Shuttle.
On November 5, 1990, United States President George H. W. Bush signed into law the Launch Services Purchase Act [5]. The Act, in a complete reversal of the earlier Space Shuttle monopoly, ordered NASA to purchase launch services for its primary payloads from commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities.
In my search, I have also found an act called the ITAR requiring the permission of the Department of Defense to sell space technology that might be harmful to national security. If you want to get a sense of just what a space entrepreneur has to go through just to develop space technology listen to this mp3. A bureaucrat working with the ITAR explains the issues and justifications for heavily regulating the industry.
Just listen and make sure to enjoy the part where she says your license application might be rejected for classified reasons, but rest assured its keeping the nation safe from free markets, err I mean terrorrists. Then tell me all about how the state has facilitated space exploration technology.
Make sure to enjoy the part where she lists the Oceanic department as one that can potentially reject your license. It makes sense if you seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
List of things I have lost my rights for:
The Children
Global Warming
And now I can add
National Security
October 5th, 2006 at 7:33 am
lol, you could have added National Security a LONG time ago.
October 5th, 2006 at 8:05 am
I Forgot about Drug Users.
October 5th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
As a side note I hope this leads you to abandon using the space program as evidence of the virtues of central planning.
October 6th, 2006 at 7:27 am
My argument was never that the government fosters innovation in the private sector by regulating it. My argument was that the government is capable of doing innovative things that the private sector hasn’t. I agree that the government was totally out of line imposing restrictions on the private sector in this case. All I’m saying is the private sector wasn’t landing anyone on the moon in the 60s, before the restrictions your post is talking about went into place.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Ahem, those restrictions were repealed in the 80s not enacted.
You have implied that governmet is just as capable as private and you have used the space program as the example.
YOur space example appears to fail because its unclear how much more developed space exploration would be had the state not regulated the private side of the development.