Arnold Kling writes about his journey from leftism to libertarianism (similar to mine, except his took a lot longer), and the ways in which both philosophies are similar, and those in which they are different:

1. Far Leftists and libertarianism have much in common.
2. Libertarians know something that Far Leftists do not.

What I believe that Libertarians have learned is what social psychologists call the Fundamental Attribution Error. The error is to attribute behavior to a person's character when this behavior is in fact based on context. In one classic experiment, the subject is asked to watch a person read a speech that the subject knows that the speaker did not write. Subjects attribute to the person the beliefs contained in the speech.

The Far Left believes that bad policies come from evil motives. In this view, villains, such as powerful corporations, oppose good policies, and political incumbents lack the strength and courage to overcome the villains.

Libertarians believe that context is more important. We believe that government power is inherently corrupting, regardless of who holds leadership positions or how they are influenced. We believe that the market does a relatively good job of channelling self-interest toward socially desirable ends.

This encapsulates my views toward NASA. Contra the strawman views that I'm occasionally falsely accused of holding, it is not a diabolical, hegemonic government agency, run by evil people who want to Keep Humanity Out Of Space (though it's often hard to figure out just what it would be doing differently if it were). It's simply a blundering government bureaucracy seeking rent, as government bureaucracies are wont to do, with many good and smart people working for it responding to the incentives within. Sadly, the administrator seems generally to not understand this.

I agree. NASA is not evil, it's just a big bureaucratic government agency, and big bureaucratic government agencies are about the worst possible way to actually do anything.

I've often thought that the biggest issue for government bureacracies is the lack of "creative destruction," even more so than the corrupting influence of government power. Or is that just an aspect of the corrupting influence? Out in the non-government free enterprise system, if a business doesn't get the job done and/or can't attract enough investment to continue trying to get the job done, it disappears. There may have been some good ideas involved in the business, and there may be "good and smart people" working for the business, but it still gets the capitalistic death sentence. And, best of all, after this business dies, these good and smart people can go try something else and any good ideas from the business may be utilized in different ways or even in the same way by different people who can actually make it work. The government agency never goes away, no matter how bad a job it is doing.

Maybe it is be possible to change the culture of NASA somehow so that there is correct incentivization. If NASA wasn't a big government agency, it would eventually be gone if it couldn't improve.

If I were personally in your shoes I would never consider leaving a good and probably reasonably interesting job with NASA--my responsibility to take care of my family is a much higher priority than most or all of my other ambitions. But I'll bet you've given significant thought about what you might do instead if NASA were suddenly not there. I'd even bet you've given thought to finding something else even given that NASA continues to exist.

In the interests of full disclosure, I work for a private firm--but most of the revenue is from government contracts, mostly defense work. On principle I am much more excited about the private industry contracts we have, and I console myself with the fact that even most libertarians tend to think national defense is an appropriate role for government. In any case, we are susceptible to the same "responding to incentives" issues you describe in NASA.

So NASA isn't evil; just incompetent. Great, I'm sure they feel much better now.

It's amusingly ironic that you post a big rant about the importance of context, and then interpret it as "because NASA appears to be a blundering government bureaucracy seeking rent, it must fundamentally be a blundering government bureaucracy seeking rent, and cannot ever be anything but a blundering government bureaucracy seeking rent".

There is no problem that NASA has that elimination of non-NASA oversight could not cure. Give NASA money and stop scrutinizing the way that they spend it, and you'll get results. Of course, these days most of our money is given to old people as a reward for being old, or given to poor people as a reward for being poor; as a result, the government over-analyzes all other spending so that they appear to be competently and concientiously managing tax revenues.

Far Leftists and libertarianism have much in common.

They both respirate carbon dioxide for example.

Oh, by the way--Lockheed has cut 25% of its workforce from its commercial-satellite division and expects to cut more next year; I predict that within three years the division will be closed entirely, and what little commercial work Lockheed does will be an adjunct to its government business. A VICTORY FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR!

I predict that within three years the division will be closed entirely, and what little commercial work Lockheed does will be an adjunct to its government business. A VICTORY FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR!

Yep. Didn't take long for price competiton from Boeing, Astrium and Alcatel to throw LM's lazy comsat division out on their arse.

DensityDuck: In the first part of the post (unless I am mistaken), you are taking the position that it is NOT the case that "because NASA appears to be a blundering government bureaucracy seeking rent, it must fundamentally be a blundering government bureaucracy seeking rent, and cannot ever be anything but a blundering government bureaucracy seeking rent."

I don't necessarily disagree with this point. I would love to see NASA become, somehow, a great force for moving humanity into space. But this touches exactly the point I made in my previous post:
We try to reform NASA by doing X--it doesn't work. We try to reform NASA by doing Y--it doesn't work. We try to reform NASA by doing Z--it doesn.t work. Since NASA is a big government bureaucracy, this process has the potential to go on forever, or at least far beyond any reasonable use of resources. If NASA was a private company and couldn't make money, it would eventually go away. It wouldn't continue siphoning resources in repeated failed attempts to change or to get stuff done. It seems like people are always wanting to "reform" big government agencies, rather than eliminate them. Nobody calls for us to "reform" a business that has gone backrupt. The people go find other jobs, the buildings get leased out to someone else, the intellectual property devolves to whoever buys it in the bankruptcy proceedings.

"There is no problem that NASA has that elimination of non-NASA oversight could not cure. Give NASA money and stop scrutinizing the way that they spend it, and you'll get results."

This has some merit, but several major flaws. First the merit: it makes sense to me that if you handed nasa upper management X billion dollars, and said "now get us cheap, reliable orbital access, and get us a manned mission to mars, and you decide how to do it," you'd get better results than we're getting now, and you'd avoid the death by a thousand cuts of too many conflicting priorities and micromanagement. Now the flaws: first, it'll never get by congress; second, giving money and promising no outside oversight seems to be inviting abuse; third, "Let's reform NASA by doing W..."

We try to reform NASA by doing Z--it doesn.t work. Since NASA is a big government bureaucracy, this process has the potential to go on forever, or at least far beyond any reasonable use of resources.

That's why we should 'reform' NASA funding into agencies which can successfully run technology development and research programs. DARPA and the NSF would be ideal candidates. Infact, ARPA used to run the civilian program before it was folded into NASA.

Give NASA money and stop scrutinizing the way that they spend it, and you'll get results.

That's the dream of every government bureaucracy - more money with less accountablility. You're essentially playing the "Trust me" card. Fat chance that'll happen, and that's a good thing. The days when NASA's operating guideline was "Waste anything but time" are long over. Good riddance.

"Didn't take long for price competiton from Boeing, Astrium and Alcatel to throw LM's lazy comsat division out on their arse."

Er...Boeing? What have they done lately? (answer: make tin whiskers in the OBC!)

You're forgetting Loral.

Also: Lazy my ass...it's hard to make money when your customers assume that each successive satellite should be 20% more capable for 20% less cost than the previous one, even though it's the same bus and the same com setup.

Jeff Mauldin and several others: You are taking the position that NASA is a Big Government Bureaucracy first and a research organization second. If this is your article of faith, then that's fine, but I don't agree.

You are taking the position that NASA is a Big Government Bureaucracy first and a research organization second. If this is your article of faith, then that's fine, but I don't agree.

Then you must be looking at a different NASA than we are. In fact, Mike Griffin himself has said that NASA is getting out of the research business. There's very little basic research going on at the agency, relative to its total budget.

So NASA isn't evil; just incompetent.

No, it's extremely competent at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is not get us into space. What it does is preserve itself and attempt to grow.

Read a little public-choice theory in economics.

Christensen made a similar realization about why some companies can't adapt to technological change. It's not because their management is stupid or evil or greedy, it's because the internal structure of the corporation sets up a context in which the actions that are rewarded are not those needed to adapt to the new technology. For example, it may be necessary to focus on small niches that may in the future grow to replace the current technology, even if those small niches aren't very profitable and don't overlap the existing large customer base. Changing this context is a difficult problem for upper management.