Free market principles cannot support projects lacking profit incentive
Last week, Newt Gingrich promised Florida voters a permanent moon colony "by the end of [his] second term". Lots of fun has been had at poor Newt's expense since he made this promise, though this has actually been a recurring theme throughout his career. For example, in the 1980s he predicted that by 2020 "a typical couple might take a honeymoon trip into space for around $15,000." Personally, I don't feel I can make fun of Gingrich for this. However, I do feel compelled to point out how Gingrich's beloved space program just isn't compatible with his conservative philosophy of government.
After all, that is why the space program was a government project in the first place. Putting humans into space and onto the moon cost a lot of money, and it didn't make any back. We did it to expand our understanding of the universe, and also just to see if we could — to push the limits of what we, as a species, are capable of achieving. These are noble goals, but they are not goals that a competitive, capital-driven market could ever foster.
In the course of pursuing these goals, however, NASA has produced a wide range of technologies that had practical, down-to-Earth applications: scratch-resistant lenses, smoke detectors, improved pacemakers and athletic shoe insoles. Some of these technologies have no doubt proven profitable for private companies, especially given that much of the bill was footed by the government.
These technologies demonstrate how government investment can produce economically quantifiable benefits, but society has also benefited from the space program in innumerable ways that cannot be measured. Market-driven enterprises never concern themselves with the immeasurable. It's ironic, then, that the space program that so excites Newt Gingrich's imagination stands as a perfect illustration of the limitations of the Republicans' limited-government ideal and of the possibilities that government investment can open up.
