Harry Browne on Technology 2000 Libertarian Nominee for President

NASA hurts private space ventures

In the 1970s several private companies wanted to build their own rocket launchers and send satellites into space. But the government wouldn’t use their services. And by offering cheap, subsidized rates for launching satellites, the government effectively killed all private competition.

It took the Challenger crash to change the rules; now government agencies use private launch services, instead of driving them out of the market.

Unburden private companies from subsidized competition and they will provide the money to do what is truly worth doing. Usually they will succeed. But if they fail, it won’t cost the taxpayers anything.

Govt uses anti-trust laws to stifle competition

A: “We’re from the government, and we’re here to improve your software.”

Q: Is there any place for anti-trust litigation?

A: If you hate Bill Gates, don’t buy his products. If you hate Janet Reno, you’re out of luck-because she has fines and imprisonment to back her up. No, I do not think there is a place for anti-trust litigation. Anti-trust laws (even in the days of the “robber barons”) have always been used to stifle competition, not expand it.

Let private enterprise take over space exploration from NASA

A: If the government funded car manufacturing today, most likely we would think that’s too big an enterprise for private companies. Actually, the government has wasted enormous sums on the space shuttle and the space station - projects that could have been done for much less without bureaucratic expense. No, we don’t have a government for NASA. We have it to protect us from predators - foreign or domestic. NASA is a politically motivated agency that makes its decisions based on politics, just like the FDA or any other government agency. If people won’t pay voluntarily for the fruits of space exploration, why should they be forced (through taxes) to do so? If you can impose your way on others, they can impose their way on you.

Keep government out of the Internet

Y2K, like Internet, will be solved by free market

If Microsoft loses, consumers will pay more

Competition makes high tech work--keep it unregulated

Apple Computer saw a chance to profit by offering potential buyers an easier way than MS-DOS, with the Macintosh computer in 1984. Not to be outdone, Microsoft developed a competing system, called Windows, with many of the same benefits as the Macintosh, plus a few more. IBM offered another pictorial system, called OS/2, that had still more benefits.
• It was competition among profit-seeking companies, not regulation, that made computers easier to use.
• It was competition, not regulation, that cut computer prices by over 95% between 1981 and 1995.
• It was competition, not regulation, that made computers faster and more powerful.
• It was competition, not regulation, that made them more reliable.