NASA wasted the better part of another $110 million of hard earned taxpayer money recently. NASA spent the money on a robotic spacecraft designed to rendezvous with satellites. The robotic spacecraft was supposed to get within 16 feet of a particular satellite as part of a test run. It only got within 300 feet, however, before it detected a fuel malfunction and had to abort. The spacecraft then did as designed and went into a disintegrating orbit in which it would burn up over the following 12 hours. Well done!
The project was considered high risk because of the automated controls and low budget. Low budget!?! Perhaps by government standards, but I would be very surprised if a private attempt at the same feat cost more than 1/10th of NASA’s “low budget” bust. It would succeed too! And not only succeed, but actually make contact with the satellite instead of just coming within 16 or 300 feet of it.
For more on NASA’s expensive “partial success,” see here and here.
Here’s an interesting excerpt from Federalist #6, written by Alexander Hamilton, that directly contradicts Immanuel Kant’s famous argument for what is today called the democratic peace thesis. For Kant it was a republican peace, but he thought that a combination of republics, international trade, and international laws and organizations would be necessary for bringing about and maintaining world peace.
Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found, that momentary passions and immediate interests have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility, and justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealously, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well-known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals, in whom they place confidence, and are of course liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives, since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or domination? Has not the spirit of commerce in many instances administered new incentives to the appetite of both for the one and for the other? Let experience the least fallible guide of human opinions be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.
It’s finally here! The latest issue of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, with the theme of Ayn Rand among the Austrians. I’ve been waiting for this issue for months now, because it contains articles pertaining to a topic I am very much interested in: reconciling Objectivism and praxeology. Now I just have to somehow resist the temptation to drop all of my schoolwork and spend too much time reading it.
Political Science PhD
