The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
An Appreciation By Thomas A. Hall
TANSTAAFL – There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch! With this one statement, Robert A. Heinlein establishes both his bona fides as a Conservative Libertarian and a succinct summary of the Libertarian ethos. However, he also explains the conservative beliefs of his freedom-seeking, but largely non-ideological Moon dwellers in this great science fiction novel written in 1966.
Of all his many brilliant science fiction novels and short stories, there is none that is more affecting, more defining of the Conservative Libertarian point of view, than this story. Often cited by conservatives in the media as a transformative personal event, reading this book will, generally, draw people to a better understanding of, and appreciation for, personal liberty and the costs to acquire and maintain it. Mr. Heinlein cleverly appropriates Thomas Jefferson’s writings, including a slightly modified Declaration of Independence, to make his case and creates a colony on the Moon that is, in many ways, equivalent to the colonial milieu in 1776 North America. With a cast of characters that is compellingly human in their attitudes and uncertainties, while distinctly different physiologically from those humans living on Earth, he sets up a conflict based first in economics (Who will control the produce of the Moon colony?) and then, more problematically for the Moon colonists, on personal freedom from the colonial rulers’ oversight.
What I, personally, found most entertaining in the story was the manner in which deceit played a role in both the revolutionary leaders’ efforts to create a revolutionary fervor amongst the Moon’s populace and in the response by the Moon’s Colonial administrators. Both groups relied upon deceitful practices to steer their respective client groups toward their own desired ends. In Mr. Heinlein’s view, apparently, both noble and ignoble causes rely upon clever manipulation of the masses to achieve their ends. Readers may perceive this as a particularly cynical view of political movements but, even casual experience with politics would show this to be a reasonable depiction of how things are.
I don’t mean to say that political leaders should or should not attempt to “control the message” when seeking to win the public debate. Rather, as I believe Mr. Heinlein also thought, I think this is simply the way things are in this imperfect world in which we live. Mankind has never managed to find another method whereby all could express their goals, concerns and desires in a completely free, egalitarian manner. Were we to do so, the need for politicians and their deceptions would cease. Until that time arrives, it remains necessary for successful politicians of all stripes to arrange the facts in a manner that best serves their agenda. For the electorate this means: “Let the buyer beware!”
Happily for the Moon dwellers, they are able to achieve their freedom. Unhappily for their leaders, the freedom they achieve comes at great cost and, in the end, appears to be less stable, and less free, than they had hoped. One is left to wonder if our nation’s Founding Fathers might also wonder what they had wrought were they to see us now.
With many predictive assumptions on future technology that, in 1966, were merely a dream, Mr. Heinlein could have composed a work that, by now, seems dated. However, by emphasizing the human rather than the technological, he wrote a novel that seems as relevant today as it was 44 years ago. Even much of the technology described in the novel is now either commonplace or under development. By not relying upon such “out there” sci-fi staples as time travel, he managed to write a novel that seems, in the most ordinary sense, completely possible. We may never have penal colonies on the Moon, but the parallels with the development of North America and Australia ring true in our human experience.
Returning to TANSTAAFL, this statement, as common to Mr. Heinlein’s Moon dwellers as SNAFU is to army staff, is used as a casual reminder that life is hard and the expectation that government can give anyone anything merely means that someone else lost what they had so that government could assign it to another beneficiary. Every action has consequences and those consequences are a) to some degree unknown and, b) certain to have both good and bad effects on the government’s subjects. Mr. Heinlein, through his surrogate, Manuel Davis, clearly comes down on the side of everyone looking after their own needs and working for those things they desire—recognizing that everyone has different goals and objectives and will perform in the manner that best suits them to achieve those same goals and objectives.
This appealing ideal is, I believe, the driving force in today’s Tea Party movement. There are, no doubt, any number of competing issues and ideologies in that roiling mass of individuals but, if there is one overriding theme, it is this: government is too intrusive in citizen’s lives and seeks too much control in the name of concern for the citizen’s wellbeing. There appears to be awareness among the Tea Party members that government largesse can only be had at the expense of another. This thought that has so animated the Tea Party seems to be of no concern at all to the majority of Republicans and Democrats. Hence, the disillusionment of the Tea Party with both of our country’s main political parties.
While the Tea Party movement declares these to be revolutionary times, they are still far removed from the kind of freedom movement experienced by our Founding Fathers or, for that matter, Mr. Heinlein’s characters. Having written this novel in the midst of America’s “Great Society” expansion of Federal powers, Mr. Heinlein was witness to the rise of the state as a paternal figure and prophesied, as it were, the coming dependency of mankind on government “generosity.” I don’t think he favored such a fate!
Mr. Heinlein passed away in 1988, but his vision of a free people living with a minimum of governmental influence remains as appealing and compelling today as it was in 1966. I fully expect that “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress” will continue to change minds for years to come. It is as challenging of “progressive” ideas as Russell Kirk and a LOT more fun!
Thomas A. Hall
Of all his many brilliant science fiction novels and short stories, there is none that is more affecting, more defining of the Conservative Libertarian point of view, than this story. Often cited by conservatives in the media as a transformative personal event, reading this book will, generally, draw people to a better understanding of, and appreciation for, personal liberty and the costs to acquire and maintain it. Mr. Heinlein cleverly appropriates Thomas Jefferson’s writings, including a slightly modified Declaration of Independence, to make his case and creates a colony on the Moon that is, in many ways, equivalent to the colonial milieu in 1776 North America. With a cast of characters that is compellingly human in their attitudes and uncertainties, while distinctly different physiologically from those humans living on Earth, he sets up a conflict based first in economics (Who will control the produce of the Moon colony?) and then, more problematically for the Moon colonists, on personal freedom from the colonial rulers’ oversight.
What I, personally, found most entertaining in the story was the manner in which deceit played a role in both the revolutionary leaders’ efforts to create a revolutionary fervor amongst the Moon’s populace and in the response by the Moon’s Colonial administrators. Both groups relied upon deceitful practices to steer their respective client groups toward their own desired ends. In Mr. Heinlein’s view, apparently, both noble and ignoble causes rely upon clever manipulation of the masses to achieve their ends. Readers may perceive this as a particularly cynical view of political movements but, even casual experience with politics would show this to be a reasonable depiction of how things are.
I don’t mean to say that political leaders should or should not attempt to “control the message” when seeking to win the public debate. Rather, as I believe Mr. Heinlein also thought, I think this is simply the way things are in this imperfect world in which we live. Mankind has never managed to find another method whereby all could express their goals, concerns and desires in a completely free, egalitarian manner. Were we to do so, the need for politicians and their deceptions would cease. Until that time arrives, it remains necessary for successful politicians of all stripes to arrange the facts in a manner that best serves their agenda. For the electorate this means: “Let the buyer beware!”
Happily for the Moon dwellers, they are able to achieve their freedom. Unhappily for their leaders, the freedom they achieve comes at great cost and, in the end, appears to be less stable, and less free, than they had hoped. One is left to wonder if our nation’s Founding Fathers might also wonder what they had wrought were they to see us now.
With many predictive assumptions on future technology that, in 1966, were merely a dream, Mr. Heinlein could have composed a work that, by now, seems dated. However, by emphasizing the human rather than the technological, he wrote a novel that seems as relevant today as it was 44 years ago. Even much of the technology described in the novel is now either commonplace or under development. By not relying upon such “out there” sci-fi staples as time travel, he managed to write a novel that seems, in the most ordinary sense, completely possible. We may never have penal colonies on the Moon, but the parallels with the development of North America and Australia ring true in our human experience.
Returning to TANSTAAFL, this statement, as common to Mr. Heinlein’s Moon dwellers as SNAFU is to army staff, is used as a casual reminder that life is hard and the expectation that government can give anyone anything merely means that someone else lost what they had so that government could assign it to another beneficiary. Every action has consequences and those consequences are a) to some degree unknown and, b) certain to have both good and bad effects on the government’s subjects. Mr. Heinlein, through his surrogate, Manuel Davis, clearly comes down on the side of everyone looking after their own needs and working for those things they desire—recognizing that everyone has different goals and objectives and will perform in the manner that best suits them to achieve those same goals and objectives.
This appealing ideal is, I believe, the driving force in today’s Tea Party movement. There are, no doubt, any number of competing issues and ideologies in that roiling mass of individuals but, if there is one overriding theme, it is this: government is too intrusive in citizen’s lives and seeks too much control in the name of concern for the citizen’s wellbeing. There appears to be awareness among the Tea Party members that government largesse can only be had at the expense of another. This thought that has so animated the Tea Party seems to be of no concern at all to the majority of Republicans and Democrats. Hence, the disillusionment of the Tea Party with both of our country’s main political parties.
While the Tea Party movement declares these to be revolutionary times, they are still far removed from the kind of freedom movement experienced by our Founding Fathers or, for that matter, Mr. Heinlein’s characters. Having written this novel in the midst of America’s “Great Society” expansion of Federal powers, Mr. Heinlein was witness to the rise of the state as a paternal figure and prophesied, as it were, the coming dependency of mankind on government “generosity.” I don’t think he favored such a fate!
Mr. Heinlein passed away in 1988, but his vision of a free people living with a minimum of governmental influence remains as appealing and compelling today as it was in 1966. I fully expect that “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress” will continue to change minds for years to come. It is as challenging of “progressive” ideas as Russell Kirk and a LOT more fun!
Thomas A. Hall
