I have not read it, but I hear that Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe is an important work among those who advocate ID. Applause for your interest in going to the source. I wish more slashdotters thought this way. It leads to much more interesting discussions.
Tolkien and Lewis were close friends, and Tolkien was the one that led Lewis to his faith. However, Tolkien thought that the Chronicles were too overtly Christian, and consequently, the religious symbolism in LOTR is more subtle.
Right. You and I disagree on what the coercive power of government should be used for. I say only the things that government, by its nature, can solely provide, and you are happy for government to provide other services as well. I think your position is immoral, and you think my position is crazy because who doesn't like libraries? In answer to your question, I think libraries, information networks, etc. should be paid for by people who use them. Charge an annual fee to use the library. What's so outrageous about that?
I agree with you that some taxes are necessary, and we should pay them (maybe even happily). But I want my tax money to buy things that I can't buy elsewhere. I can get internet access somewhere else.
Of course there will always be opposition to every task government takes. What I am saying is that we should recognize that government is coercive by nature. Obviously, unless we want anarchy (which I do not), government is going to have to be coercive to do certain governmental things: establish a police force, administer courts, etc. These are things that only governments can do (there is some interesting research going into private law, but in my view, it's not really feasible). When government begins to use its vast coercive power on things that are not explicitly governmental (wifi, or cookies for everyone!), we have a problem. In the case of wifi, it's petty tyranny.
I am an economist. I fully understand that even if you rent housing, you pay property tax. But that's not what I was getting at. Look at it this way. Suppose it costs $10 per user to set up wifi. Suppose half the people in a town use the wifi and the town charges each resident $5. The town meets expenses and does not make a profit. Suppose further that you live next door to a poor old widow who does not own a computer, and does not even know how to use one. Her $5 tax is going to pay for half of your service. Half of your service is free, because she was coerced into paying the tax (if she does not pay the tax, she goes to jail or her property gets confiscated). My argument is this: think of the poor old widow. Don't tax her to pay for luxuries that you want to enjoy. Do you really think it's right to tax someone for something they will not use and which government alone does not need to provide?
Here's what I understand your argument to be: municipalities are just groups of people who live near each other, and groups of people who live near each other should be able to set up a wifi network if they wish to do so.
Here's the flaw in what you're saying: very few policy decisions (even in municipalities) are unanimous, so it is likely that there is a subgroup that does not wish to participate in the project. You are advocating coercing these people to participate, or at least to fund everyone else's participation. I think this coercion is immoral.
Furthermore, I guess I can understand why people spend so much time scheming to get someone else to pay for what they consume--it's human nature--but a moment's reflection will show that it's pathetic. If you consume internet access, why shouldn't you pay for it? Why should you get it for free at the expense of one of your neighbors?
Brown would make a fantastic Supreme Court Justice, and not because she's a minority of a minority of a minority. She would be outstanding because she is a true scholar, and because she has been at the forefront of articulating conservative-libertarian judicial philosophy.
Miers is bad, not because of this stupid tech angle and not because she's never been a judge, but a) because she has no demonstrable scholarly credentials whatsoever, and b) her nomination sends a message to bright young conservative lawyers: don't write anything contraversial, don't join the Federalist society, don't vocally challenge the logic of popular cases, and don't express doubts about the permissiveness of the Commerce Clause, because if you do, you will never be nominated for high-scrutiny positions.
Mod parent down. While it is true that Taiwan has not formally declared independence, the Republic of China is different than the People's Republic of China. ROC=Taiwan, PRC=China. This is misinformative.
Rather than messing with the GIMP on Windows, I prefer to use Paint.NET for my light graphics needs. It's not as powerful as Photoshop or the GIMP, but it is quite nice and available under an MIT license.
You say "trigger happy" as if it's a bad thing. Yes, the US is more willing to go to war than, say, Europe. But if the US were not so "trigger happy," it's likely that we would all be subject today to global Nazi or Soviet rule. American belliphilia (is that a neologism?) has saved the world twice in the last century, so while I completely understand Europe's (and others') desire to have some control over something as important as the internet, I truly prefer to have the US in charge.
Giving control of the internet to the UN would mean giving China a say in how it is run. Given their idea of free speech (it's a Constitution right for the Chinese), that's really not acceptable.
Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
It may be true that most people are followers and not leaders, but in most prediction markets (not Google's yet, as I understand it), people have to back up their predictions with cash. Those that are informed in their predictions win money and come back. Those that make ignorant predictions lose money and go away. This is what makes prediction markets work. It's a way to consistently sift the wisdom from the "herd mentality," without resorting to populism or democracy.
Prediction markets are a great invention. I think you should look into them a little more before you dismiss them as groupthink, because they are exactly the opposite.
I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. It seems to me that better information does empower the consumer, but that for some political reason you don't like what the consumer might do with that power. In addition, better information for the consumer in a competitive market pushes profits down toward i*K, that is, the interest rate times capital. It limits the profits of all merchants much more than does the status quo.
Retric, thanks for a spirited discussion over the last couple days. I think we have established where our differences lie:
The government's job is to help the populace by providing goods and services that are best preformed by a large body working for the good of the community.
This is what I disagree with. I think the government should specialize in those things tasks which are inherently governmental in nature, such as keeping the peace, enforcing contracts, and providing physical infrastructure. The moment the government begins providing goods and services, in my view, it has overstepped its bounds. This is not because I dislike goods and services, nor is it because I am unwilling to pay high taxes to support governmental functions. It is because government participation in the economy is neofeudalism. Citizens are told to "shut up and do what you're told," which, in this case, is fork over tax dollars for scientific research. Now, as I have been at pains to say, research is good, but, as Hayek said, "If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I also disagree that private institutions will simply not do the research in question (though even if they did not, my first argument still stands). Between private, for-profit firms, and private, non-profit institutions, I think all the bases are covered. It's clear that you do not, but such is life: people disagree.
I suppose I will leave you with a final question: who decides? Under your scheme, who decides what gets funded and what doesn't? Should it be technocrats in Washington? That's an elitist attitude, and the technocrats have no accountability. Should it be the voters? Most of them do not know the issues. I propose that we leave it to the market, which rewards people who make good investments and punishes those who make bad ones. It never makes anyone take an unwanted risk, and it provides plenty of risk opportunity for those in search of more rewards, and funds are never misallocated for long. It may be cold, but if I want something warm and fuzzy, I'll get a dog.
If you point your browser to talk.google.com, you get redirected to www.google.com/talk. Nothing there yet, but they wouldn't have put that redirect in place unless they were planning on setting it up.
Though I am an economist by profession, I will grant you that I have still more to learn about my discipline. You have committed several fallacies that suggest to me that you have even more to learn.
I agree with Rothbard
Rothbard was an anarchist, and did not support government-funded research.
As you reduce government funding for research you slow down 'the pace of research' so if you want to eliminate gov funding you want to slow down that pace.
Not necessarily. Less government intervention leads to a more competitive economy which leads to innovation and economic growth. Innovation is what we're looking for, and we get it for free in a competitive environment. Economic growth increases our ability to afford research. Furthermore, lower taxes increase the funds available for private research.
it has been worth far more (over time) than the one time 1 trillion$ cost you named
Maybe, but firstly, could the private sector have done it for less? I think so. Secondly, my $1 trillion estimate is for the space program alone. If you want to count all government research in the last century (adjusted for inflation) it would be much higher.
Risk drives the economy forward but few people are willing to take this risk.
Firstly, lots of people are willing to take risk. There are entire industries devoted to taking risks and managing risks (think private equity and hedging instruments). I risk money in the stock market every day, and I'd bet that you do too, if you are saving for retirement. Secondly, pooling of risk makes even longshot investments palatable. Indeed, what you are advocating by supporting government-funded research is one big risk pool. I think that approach is wrong. I think we should let smaller risk pools compete against each other (and therefore perform better). Furthermore, I do not think we should coerce people, through the power of government, who do not want to be involved in such a risk pool to "invest" through taxes. Let profits accrue to those who risk money in the arena, and let those who prefer to sit on their money do so.
Look, you've twisted my words (when I have explicitly said the opposite) to allege that I am in favor of somehow slowing down the pace of research. You've also clearly demonstrated that you don't understand the idea of return on investment. The only reason the government can launch all those fun satellites is because they have invested on the order of a trillion inflation-adjusted dollars into the endeavor. What do we have to show for it? Satellite TV, weather forecasts, GPS, and espionage--all good things! But is it a good return on a trillion bucks? I don't think so.
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." -- Murray N. Rothbard
I completely understand why people might object to this. However, I can't seem to be able to muster any sympathy for them. I don't think government should subsidize anything; not research, not business, not the arts. I suppose it's human nature to think that whatever you're working on is so important that it demands the sacrifice of everyone else, but I just don't buy it. Government funding of research may or may not provide scientific advances, but there is one thing it will surely create: whiny researchers who want more funding.
Furthermore, the idea that the government gets a better return on investment in research than do private firms is not a serious one.
Finally, are you suggesting that it's a good use of our tax money to subsidize satellite TV? TV? Really? I would like it more if people watched less TV and spent more time doing something constructive.
Get real. I object to ALL government funding of research for philosophical reasons. I do not, however, object to scientific research generally, provided it is privately funded and within reasonable ethical boundaries. By your logic, however, my position is somehow inconsistent. Care to enlighten me?
Slashdot Mirror
I have not read it, but I hear that Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe is an important work among those who advocate ID. Applause for your interest in going to the source. I wish more slashdotters thought this way. It leads to much more interesting discussions.
Tolkien and Lewis were close friends, and Tolkien was the one that led Lewis to his faith. However, Tolkien thought that the Chronicles were too overtly Christian, and consequently, the religious symbolism in LOTR is more subtle.
Problems may occour for mirror sites of course.
Is occour the British spelling of occur?
Then run it as a charity. That's the moral way to do it.
Right. You and I disagree on what the coercive power of government should be used for. I say only the things that government, by its nature, can solely provide, and you are happy for government to provide other services as well. I think your position is immoral, and you think my position is crazy because who doesn't like libraries? In answer to your question, I think libraries, information networks, etc. should be paid for by people who use them. Charge an annual fee to use the library. What's so outrageous about that?
I agree with you that some taxes are necessary, and we should pay them (maybe even happily). But I want my tax money to buy things that I can't buy elsewhere. I can get internet access somewhere else.
Of course there will always be opposition to every task government takes. What I am saying is that we should recognize that government is coercive by nature. Obviously, unless we want anarchy (which I do not), government is going to have to be coercive to do certain governmental things: establish a police force, administer courts, etc. These are things that only governments can do (there is some interesting research going into private law, but in my view, it's not really feasible). When government begins to use its vast coercive power on things that are not explicitly governmental (wifi, or cookies for everyone!), we have a problem. In the case of wifi, it's petty tyranny.
I am an economist. I fully understand that even if you rent housing, you pay property tax. But that's not what I was getting at. Look at it this way. Suppose it costs $10 per user to set up wifi. Suppose half the people in a town use the wifi and the town charges each resident $5. The town meets expenses and does not make a profit. Suppose further that you live next door to a poor old widow who does not own a computer, and does not even know how to use one. Her $5 tax is going to pay for half of your service. Half of your service is free, because she was coerced into paying the tax (if she does not pay the tax, she goes to jail or her property gets confiscated). My argument is this: think of the poor old widow. Don't tax her to pay for luxuries that you want to enjoy. Do you really think it's right to tax someone for something they will not use and which government alone does not need to provide?
Here's what I understand your argument to be: municipalities are just groups of people who live near each other, and groups of people who live near each other should be able to set up a wifi network if they wish to do so.
Here's the flaw in what you're saying: very few policy decisions (even in municipalities) are unanimous, so it is likely that there is a subgroup that does not wish to participate in the project. You are advocating coercing these people to participate, or at least to fund everyone else's participation. I think this coercion is immoral.
Furthermore, I guess I can understand why people spend so much time scheming to get someone else to pay for what they consume--it's human nature--but a moment's reflection will show that it's pathetic. If you consume internet access, why shouldn't you pay for it? Why should you get it for free at the expense of one of your neighbors?
When's the last time a code name was also used for the retail product? I can't remember that ever happening.
Uh...Tiger?
Just because you download it from iTMS doesn't mean you have to watch it on your iPod.
Brown would make a fantastic Supreme Court Justice, and not because she's a minority of a minority of a minority. She would be outstanding because she is a true scholar, and because she has been at the forefront of articulating conservative-libertarian judicial philosophy.
Miers is bad, not because of this stupid tech angle and not because she's never been a judge, but a) because she has no demonstrable scholarly credentials whatsoever, and b) her nomination sends a message to bright young conservative lawyers: don't write anything contraversial, don't join the Federalist society, don't vocally challenge the logic of popular cases, and don't express doubts about the permissiveness of the Commerce Clause, because if you do, you will never be nominated for high-scrutiny positions.
Mod parent down. While it is true that Taiwan has not formally declared independence, the Republic of China is different than the People's Republic of China. ROC=Taiwan, PRC=China. This is misinformative.
Rather than messing with the GIMP on Windows, I prefer to use Paint.NET for my light graphics needs. It's not as powerful as Photoshop or the GIMP, but it is quite nice and available under an MIT license.
You say "trigger happy" as if it's a bad thing. Yes, the US is more willing to go to war than, say, Europe. But if the US were not so "trigger happy," it's likely that we would all be subject today to global Nazi or Soviet rule. American belliphilia (is that a neologism?) has saved the world twice in the last century, so while I completely understand Europe's (and others') desire to have some control over something as important as the internet, I truly prefer to have the US in charge.
Giving control of the internet to the UN would mean giving China a say in how it is run. Given their idea of free speech (it's a Constitution right for the Chinese), that's really not acceptable.
From the Constitution of the People's Republic of China:
Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Open Source Software is the free-market response to closed, expensive software. THAT is what the author does not understand.
I still don't know what TPS stands for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPS_report.
It may be true that most people are followers and not leaders, but in most prediction markets (not Google's yet, as I understand it), people have to back up their predictions with cash. Those that are informed in their predictions win money and come back. Those that make ignorant predictions lose money and go away. This is what makes prediction markets work. It's a way to consistently sift the wisdom from the "herd mentality," without resorting to populism or democracy.
Prediction markets are a great invention. I think you should look into them a little more before you dismiss them as groupthink, because they are exactly the opposite.
I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. It seems to me that better information does empower the consumer, but that for some political reason you don't like what the consumer might do with that power. In addition, better information for the consumer in a competitive market pushes profits down toward i*K, that is, the interest rate times capital. It limits the profits of all merchants much more than does the status quo.
Bye.
Retric, thanks for a spirited discussion over the last couple days. I think we have established where our differences lie:
The government's job is to help the populace by providing goods and services that are best preformed by a large body working for the good of the community.
This is what I disagree with. I think the government should specialize in those things tasks which are inherently governmental in nature, such as keeping the peace, enforcing contracts, and providing physical infrastructure. The moment the government begins providing goods and services, in my view, it has overstepped its bounds. This is not because I dislike goods and services, nor is it because I am unwilling to pay high taxes to support governmental functions. It is because government participation in the economy is neofeudalism. Citizens are told to "shut up and do what you're told," which, in this case, is fork over tax dollars for scientific research. Now, as I have been at pains to say, research is good, but, as Hayek said, "If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I also disagree that private institutions will simply not do the research in question (though even if they did not, my first argument still stands). Between private, for-profit firms, and private, non-profit institutions, I think all the bases are covered. It's clear that you do not, but such is life: people disagree.
I suppose I will leave you with a final question: who decides? Under your scheme, who decides what gets funded and what doesn't? Should it be technocrats in Washington? That's an elitist attitude, and the technocrats have no accountability. Should it be the voters? Most of them do not know the issues. I propose that we leave it to the market, which rewards people who make good investments and punishes those who make bad ones. It never makes anyone take an unwanted risk, and it provides plenty of risk opportunity for those in search of more rewards, and funds are never misallocated for long. It may be cold, but if I want something warm and fuzzy, I'll get a dog.
If you point your browser to talk.google.com, you get redirected to www.google.com/talk. Nothing there yet, but they wouldn't have put that redirect in place unless they were planning on setting it up.
Though I am an economist by profession, I will grant you that I have still more to learn about my discipline. You have committed several fallacies that suggest to me that you have even more to learn.
I agree with Rothbard
Rothbard was an anarchist, and did not support government-funded research.
As you reduce government funding for research you slow down 'the pace of research' so if you want to eliminate gov funding you want to slow down that pace.
Not necessarily. Less government intervention leads to a more competitive economy which leads to innovation and economic growth. Innovation is what we're looking for, and we get it for free in a competitive environment. Economic growth increases our ability to afford research. Furthermore, lower taxes increase the funds available for private research.
it has been worth far more (over time) than the one time 1 trillion$ cost you named
Maybe, but firstly, could the private sector have done it for less? I think so. Secondly, my $1 trillion estimate is for the space program alone. If you want to count all government research in the last century (adjusted for inflation) it would be much higher.
Risk drives the economy forward but few people are willing to take this risk.
Firstly, lots of people are willing to take risk. There are entire industries devoted to taking risks and managing risks (think private equity and hedging instruments). I risk money in the stock market every day, and I'd bet that you do too, if you are saving for retirement. Secondly, pooling of risk makes even longshot investments palatable. Indeed, what you are advocating by supporting government-funded research is one big risk pool. I think that approach is wrong. I think we should let smaller risk pools compete against each other (and therefore perform better). Furthermore, I do not think we should coerce people, through the power of government, who do not want to be involved in such a risk pool to "invest" through taxes. Let profits accrue to those who risk money in the arena, and let those who prefer to sit on their money do so.
Look, you've twisted my words (when I have explicitly said the opposite) to allege that I am in favor of somehow slowing down the pace of research. You've also clearly demonstrated that you don't understand the idea of return on investment. The only reason the government can launch all those fun satellites is because they have invested on the order of a trillion inflation-adjusted dollars into the endeavor. What do we have to show for it? Satellite TV, weather forecasts, GPS, and espionage--all good things! But is it a good return on a trillion bucks? I don't think so.
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." -- Murray N. Rothbard
I completely understand why people might object to this. However, I can't seem to be able to muster any sympathy for them. I don't think government should subsidize anything; not research, not business, not the arts. I suppose it's human nature to think that whatever you're working on is so important that it demands the sacrifice of everyone else, but I just don't buy it. Government funding of research may or may not provide scientific advances, but there is one thing it will surely create: whiny researchers who want more funding.
Furthermore, the idea that the government gets a better return on investment in research than do private firms is not a serious one.
Finally, are you suggesting that it's a good use of our tax money to subsidize satellite TV? TV? Really? I would like it more if people watched less TV and spent more time doing something constructive.
Get real. I object to ALL government funding of research for philosophical reasons. I do not, however, object to scientific research generally, provided it is privately funded and within reasonable ethical boundaries. By your logic, however, my position is somehow inconsistent. Care to enlighten me?