*“Any of the small number of actually useful advances that were by chance funded through government theft and coercion would have been made anyway in a free market if they are indeed beneficial. In fact, they would probably be made earlier and cheaper if not for continuous government interventions in the first place.”*

Way to generalize and make bold claims without advancing a sliver of proof.

**Maybe** SpaceX breakthroughs would have been made “earlier and cheaper” without the government interventions. But how do you prove it?

The reality is that space launch advancements were stalling for over 30 years before SpaceX was created. NASA and government contractors were still receiving funding, but nothing happened. SpaceX received government funding, too, and something good happened. This is a fact. What you say cannot be proven, so it’s irrelevant.

*“cheap launches” are only cheap because of all the government funding provided beforehand. If you account for it won’t be so cheap anymore.**

You’re saying SpaceX launches wouldn’t be cheap without government funding. So let’s imagine you remove all funding from the equation (because its competitors also get government funding), it would still the cheapest option just because of the law of physics and economics. When you recover your boosters after each launch, it will cost less to launch again, all else equal.

*Also, you might want to look up what % of SpaceX launches are paid for by private companies. Hint: it’s minuscule, and those private companies themselves are mostly private only in name as SpaceX is itself. As of October 2022, out of 38 launches listed in their active launch manifest 33 were paid by government entities, others were SpaceX own launches.*

I don’t know what line of reasoning you are using when you say SpaceX and other private companies are “only private in name”. I don’t think Elon Musk is a government agent, and I don’t think these other companies should be, either.

As for the launches breakdown, SpaceX serve governments and private entities. We can agree on the fact that satellites launches are used a lot by government agencies (for war and espionnage which we don’t necessarily want, but also for science and everyday’s comfort like weather, GPS…). I think that there would be more opportunities to create private companies looking to launch stuff in space in a free market.

*As for Starlink, if it was indeed a feasible idea it would be funded by private funds regardless. But something tells me it isn’t and other land based communication technologies are way more efficient.*

Again, if “something tells you it isn’t”, please ask something to advance proofs.

AFAIK SpaceX is selling Starlink, mostly to non government entities, so there must be demand for it.

*To sum up - all those fiat funded government directed investments are distorting free markets by allocating resources inefficiently and thus making it harder for the actually useful innovations to emerge. Which is a net negative for humanity.*

On that we agree. But if I may, I assume that if you’re writing long forms to discuss a matter, you must be trying to convince someone else that your ideas are “superior” to his/hers.

I don’t think framing issues in black and white, advancing arguments without proofs, and considering everything that the government touched “bad” or “would have been made faster, cheaper and better” will get you much attention or credit outside of the hardcore libertarian crowds.

And I don’t think dissing one of a few “lucky draw” from government funding is a good idea either, as they are way more obvious targets for that.

If you can get your point across by picking the lower hanging fruits, like fiat healthcare, fiat food, etc… Once people realize that, they’ll also realize that the government could be shrinked a bit first and how that would lead to better outcomes for them… and after seeing it then they would want to shrink it even more until we reach the best outcome.