Dr. Retard

There are a lot of "What would happen to the X?", "Who would take care of the X?", "Would we just ignore the X?" questions in this thread. Whether or not you support libertarianism, you should agree that these questions are unfairly loaded.

The implict presupposition is that government policy is a reliable way of ensuring the well-being of the X's in question. The idea, I think, is that we can count on the government to help the X's and we can't count on the market outcome to be as generous.

But this is a question-begging presupposition. Does government policy really help the X's? Who knows. Would the market outcome be more or less generous? Who knows. What we need is some evidence about the likely real-world results of government policy compared with a market arrangement.

Then we can, if we want, argue about whether it's OK to impose upon others to help the X's.

Kip

managalar:

In discussing the 'gee wiz' factor you contrast government 'gee wiz' expenditures favorably with private 'gee wiz' expenditures. There is an important difference, however. You are absolutely right that a Pizza Hut logo on the moon is just as ambitious and frivolous as an American flag on the moon. The difference, however, is that everyone who finances (or chooses not to do so) the Pizza Hut logo is doing so willingly. But not everyone who paid taxes for the moon landing supported the idea. Many people, and I would have been one of them, were forced to do so. Indeed, that is probably the reason there is an American flag on the moon but not a Pizza Hut logo.

Now, I can understand how you could think that scientific advancement (and I think the scientific return for the space program, in terms of economic investment, in dubious) is important for civilization and that exploring the moon should be more important than buying a motorcycle. My question to you is whether you think that set of priorities should be forced upon people like me? In other words, should people like me be denied a motorcycle or mp3 player to pay for your moon landing? In my opinion, the best method would be to have the program supported by an elective tax, meaning that the program receives as much tax dollars as people are willing to pay, without the majority forcing the minority to support the program. If the consequences of that are that we no longer have flags and footprints on the moon and people saved millions of dollars - that is as it ought to be.

While I agree that scientific progress is a hallmark of any civilization, I also think that liberty is a hallmark of any mature civilization and that any such scientific progress should be supported freely. I am also very skeptical of the merits of space exploration in comparison to, for example, biomedical research, or research in agricultural engineering.

Unless you are committed to the other logical fallacy of thinking that simply because a sum is small fraction of another sum, that number must be small (for example 830 million dollars is small IN COMPARISON TO the multi trillion dollar federal budget), I cannot understand how you can say that 830 million is not a huge amount of money. In that case, to make every program's budget small, all we need to do is increase the total federal budget and every program by itself begins to look like "only" 830 million dollars. This is bad logic. 830 million dollars is a gigantic amount of money.

You have misunderstood my position entirely. Although I would probably rather have my space exploration dollars go to support medical and hunger emergencies here on earth - I am taking a libertarian position in this thread and would obviously prefer it if people could simply keep their money to spend the money how they choose!

No the other difference between public and private programs, by definition, is that the government can force a minority group to support the majority, whereas in the private sector, everyone spends their money how they choose. That is how the government is more inefficient, the majority can play with the money of those who do not support their program. There is less risk. If the Apollo space program could only have the financial support of those who truly wished to give their money to the program - the program would have to be much more efficient with the money in order to work - or the program would not have happened at all. That is how the private sector is more effecient.

No, scientific progress is not the sole factor involved in any "moral system", and even if it were the sole factor, the conclusion still does not follow that Hubble or Apollo were the best ways to spend that money, because there could have been better programs (the hidden costs) that would have received financial support. But what "moral system" are you using? My "moral system" also gages the human race by the amount of liberty, food, and medicine possessed by human beings.

This sentence betrays your attitude and best illustrates where we part ways. People who do not agree with the way you spend your money, such as myself, are not necessarily ignorant or selfish. I tried to explain to you in the last post how I do support space exploration in the private sector. Your "gladness" that people who do not agree with you were forced to financial support the same programs is frightening. Enforcing your will upon a minority can be thrilling, I suppose, but nevertheless wrong.

I am not quite sure I understand how these are the exclusive options. As far as I understood, the options are:

1. space exploration is supported by the government, which can tax people even if they do not support the program

and

2. space exploration is supported by the private sector, which can only receive support from people who willingly support the program

It seems to me that 2 is almost OBVIOUSLY preferrable to 1.

While I disagree that everyone's needs are being met, I understand your point and I agree that if we didn't value understanding and science - that would be tragic. The difference between you and me is that you are willing to force that value system upon your fellow citizens. I do not understand how forcing people to pay for space exploration makes them "value" the program any more, instead of just growing resentful. Yes, I wish that everyone supported scientific endeavor (and curing cancer is more important that exploring the moon) but I cannot force people to agree with me nor would I wish to. I may be wrong. If my fellow citizen wishes to buy an mp3 player instead of supported cancer research, or putting a man on the moon, shouldn't that be his choice? You do realize that the fact that you agree with the majority on this issue is only a happy coincidence, don't you? Next time you may be in the minority and everyone else will be taking your money to pay for something you vehemently disagree with? What will you say then?

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

August Spies

Dr. Retard

Although I did not post any "what would they do about this" Im goign to say you are wrong. These are valid question.

As a standard debating rule, someone attempting to challange the norm is the one required to provide the proof/arguments. Doubly in your case, because what you are arguing against isn't just the norm... it is the only thing. There are no free market libertarian goverments. There have never been any. So it is UP TO YOU TO SHOW US WHY THEY WOULD BE BETTER.

Secondly, asking you how you would deal with the military or a police force is HARDLY some obscure loaded question. This is a basic fundamental question of goverment.

The radical leftists on this board, myself included, attempt to do no less when we post. If I want to argue for revolution I start by saying this is what is wrong with the current state of affiars, I then go on to say this is why mine would work better. The other posters on this board invariably ask the same questions. "how would you deal with defense of your new society, how would a police force work?" etc...

I don't respond by saying "oh this is loaded how about you prove it won't work" no, I attempt to show how other examples of societies I like dealt with defense issues etc.. etc...

Im not saying we, radical leftists, have been successful or not. Or that our opinons are right or not. But this is how political debates work. I see no reason why libertarians should get special treatment.


(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

August Spies

Kip:

to jump in a bit

This is silly kip. Clearly amounts of money are only "big" or "small" in comparison. This is not a logical fallacy. and IF IT IS ONE, YOU HAVE COMMITED IT TOO. How are you deciding 830 million is a large sum? compared to your bank account? compared to billy's allowance? How is a number objectively big or small when numbers stretch infinitly in either direction?

clearly all we can use is comparability. So 830 million, for a goverment of 300 million people is a tiny amount.

That is how the private sector is more effecient.
calling the "private sector" efficiant shows how twisted the english langauge has gotten. thefugativesaint did a very good post on this a while back.

Enforcing your will upon a minority can be thrilling, I suppose, but nevertheless wrong.

well assuming we did have a democracy, and even considering our psuedo-republic, it is not him forcing his will on the minority. Stop pretending.

Seeing as the majority of people are opposed to libertarian, how do you expect to get your ideas in practice except though forcing them on the majority?

come now, if you want to show the options more detail needs to be provided. I think it is fairly clear there will be differences between the 2. Obviously corporations, as PURELY DRIVEN BY PROFIT organizations, will do space travel only for profit. This has implications. First off space travel would probably come later, seconldy it is doubtful there would be much scientic advancement and exploration. More likely it would be rich people getting rides to the moon and back.... like is already happening with that backstreet boy in russia.

(fixed corrupted formatting - 99%)

thefugitivesaint

To repeat August's commentary on Kip:

Well, this ignores the fact that corporations, based on a varied number of technological fields, compete for positions in these programs. Lucrative subcontracting jobs are a very viable way for some free R&D on the public dole as most corporations who are involved in the Space Program are allowed to maintain ownership of any marketable technology. It isn't as if the general public is pushing for the space program to exist. Why would they? I don't know of a single person who has even mentioned NASA in years and many of them work in related fields. Corporations, however, can use the space program to their own advantage under the guise of "governmental assistance." Welcome to one of the many fields of "corporate welfare."

Agreed. But, the corporate sector (or "business community") have been and continue to do act in this manner. Take the entire issue of "intellectual property rights." Look at how a small 1906 law meant to protect a very select group of people and their work has become a huge tool to regulate the very things we read, see and hear.

This issue raises some very pointed contridictions for Libertarian support of "free" markets as corporation after corporation uses their power to push for laws that do nothing but regulate the activities of outside consumers, artists, musicians, etc.

It may be said that the behavior of corporations does not reflect the market itself but i find this argument dubious. The "market" is what is by the very activity of those who participate in it. The only unsoiled "market" is the abstraction of economists, Libertarians and "market" supporters. But, i am digressing and i don't have the time to be as detailed here as i would like. Perhaps later.

back to work for me.
-theSaint

Kip

August Spies,

I would argue with you but you are absolutely right about all points. All talk of small or big is a comparison - although I still think the point that 800$ million is not a trivial amount, no matter how thinly spread across the taxed population. Corporations are driven by profit and that does have implications, the question is whether these implications are necessary evils and whether or not market regulation would solve the problem or do more harm than good.

The only point I would dispute is that I "expect to get your ideas into practice" even though most everyone disagrees with me. Obviously, as a libertarian, I would only want my ideas to come into practice in a society where everyone freely chooses to agree with me. Tragically, considering that most people do not agree with me, about politics, much less religion or vegetarianism, I have no such expectation.

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Kip ]</p>

Gurdur

I just knew there was a reason why I love T-bone steaks so much !

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

99Percent

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

August Spies

"I would only want my ideas to come into practice in a society where everyone freely chooses to agree with me."

Kip,

im glad you respond well to reason (wow that sounds far more pretentious that it means to be). Too many people never change their stance on things. (probably me to a degree as well).

As for your quote above. YOu are correct. I apologize for assuming you would enforce libertarianism on people.

peace.

99percent: we have had several discussions on this previously, I dont' remember you doing much to prove the arguments wrong.

99Percent

Can you actually enforce libertarianism on people? Think about this oxymoron, before just stating it and maybe you will get a hint about what objective morality is all about