Yes - a combination of private enterprise and charity, as has worked brilliantly in the case of SpaceShipOne, and in so many other research situations around the world.
But do understand, public funding is *not* a viable alternative, because it is coercive. It's like me saying "I want a new car, but I can't afford it, so I'll force other people to pay for it - because there isn't a viable alternative".
If it requires coercive funding, it can't morally be done.
Rubbish - it's profitable as an advertising medium for starters, & many wealth entrepreneurs are keen to support it. Space tourism etc. seems profitable from early experiences too:-)
Further, if it can't be done without compulsory taxation, *IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE*. Just because it's something you like doesn't mean others should be forced to pay for it.
Abstract research like you describe could be funded by entrepreneurs, corporate sponsorship, private charity... all of the above have played a part in the SpaceshipOne project.
So, they think their funding is under threat from private enterprise - so they plan to use Other Peoples Money to do what private enterprise can already do, only better than NASA. Thieving bastards.
Space exploration is yet another field that should be handled entirely by private enterprise & charity.
No, it's not the general answer. The general answer is, as you say, severe laws against the *initiation* of violence - coupled with having some of the population armed for their own defense.
Again, check out the article on my homepage, & how the entire female population of a town benefited from the fact that some of them were armed, and that that fact was public knowledge.
And neither would the millions of uses of firearms for the protection of life & property annually in the USA. Furthermore, do you think gun control actually disarms criminals?
Would you consider it irrelevant if they refused paid ads from Jews, Blacks, or Homosexuals? I submit that you only consider it irrelevant because you don't consider the right to keep & bear arms just that - a right.
Firstly, it's spelled 'cretin' - your gruesome mis-pronunciation of the word is the likely cause of your gruesome mis-spelling of same.
Secondly, so what? If you can disprove their assertions, go ahead. So far, no-one, either here or on K5, has been able to produce stats contradicting theirs.
Untrue - again, if guns are the problem, why do we not see this in Canada? IMO Michael Moore was right that many parts of the USA have a problem with violence. I disagree that it is due to, or related to, the prevalence of firearms however.
Heh - actually, you've (inadvertently) touched on another of my ranting points:-)
Many Libertarians (myself included) consider the contemporary use of the term 'liberal' to be equivalent to domain hijacking, as 'liberal' historically meant support for human rights, minimal Government, no / low compulsory taxation, free trade, etc. etc. See Liberalism, by Ludwig von Mises, for a more thorough treatment of this.
But anyway, thanks greatly for the opportunity for a discussion. It's rare around here!:-)
Yes. Consider Canada, which has comparable firearm ownership rates to the USA, & practically none of the violence. It's a violence problem, not a gun problem.
Check out Gun Facts and my own article Firearms And Self Defense. If you come across anything that contradicts those sources please let me know - as I say in my article, I'm genuinely curious to see such stats, but no-one on K5 or here has yet been able to provide any.
No problem w.r.t. to jumping on you - sometimes, the RKBA movement is it's own worst enemy because of the hostility of many of its members; Libertarians & Objectivists often suffer from the same knee-jerk hostility. It serves no purpose other than to alienate open-minded people & strengthen the resolve of the close-minded.
FWIW, I actually was anti-gun most of my life - until I started reading the stats:-)
It's sad that one has to use a subject tag like that, isn't it?:-(
There's nothing wrong with non-lethals, they're just not as likely to stop an attacker loaded up on PCP, adrenaline & malice. The stats support this, however they also suggest that non-lethals are better than nothing. They also disprove the assertion that carryin a firearm is more dangerous that not carrying (e.g. through negligent discharges, or disarmament).
Certainly, if you don't feel happy carrying a firearm, then non-lethals would be a good choice.
Guns are the most effective form of defense against stranger rape.
Again, if you have any evidence to support your claims, post away. I've posted mine elsewhere in this thread, & so far, no-one's challenged them, only spouted IMHO-disclaimered opinions.
The U.S.A. has a problem with violence - that's actually where I agree with Michael Moore. However, a gun is your best protection against such violence - especially if you're a woman. See Gun Facts for details.
Slashdot Mirror
Verbing weirds language.
:-)
Try using a thesaurus, or perhaps a literate editor
And this is what I think of when I hear 'Massport' :-)
Yes - a combination of private enterprise and charity, as has worked brilliantly in the case of SpaceShipOne, and in so many other research situations around the world.
But do understand, public funding is *not* a viable alternative, because it is coercive. It's like me saying "I want a new car, but I can't afford it, so I'll force other people to pay for it - because there isn't a viable alternative".
If it requires coercive funding, it can't morally be done.
All of those are worthy goals, yes - but they shouldn't be funded by compulsory taxation.
Rubbish - it's profitable as an advertising medium for starters, & many wealth entrepreneurs are keen to support it. Space tourism etc. seems profitable from early experiences too :-)
Further, if it can't be done without compulsory taxation, *IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE*. Just because it's something you like doesn't mean others should be forced to pay for it.
Sigh, again. They shouldn't *have* a taxpayer-funded budget at all.
Um, who funds the prize? Who funds NASA? Citizens, through compulsory taxation.
Abstract research like you describe could be funded by entrepreneurs, corporate sponsorship, private charity ... all of the above have played a part in the SpaceshipOne project.
So, they think their funding is under threat from private enterprise - so they plan to use Other Peoples Money to do what private enterprise can already do, only better than NASA. Thieving bastards.
Space exploration is yet another field that should be handled entirely by private enterprise & charity.
No, it's not the general answer. The general answer is, as you say, severe laws against the *initiation* of violence - coupled with having some of the population armed for their own defense.
Again, check out the article on my homepage, & how the entire female population of a town benefited from the fact that some of them were armed, and that that fact was public knowledge.
ROTFLMAO! I may be a 'gun nut', but holy crap that's funny :-)
And neither would the millions of uses of firearms for the protection of life & property annually in the USA. Furthermore, do you think gun control actually disarms criminals?
You may not hold your life as your primary value, & that's your call. Don't try to force others to adopt your morality of self-sacrifice.
Care to post some, *any*, evidence to support your claims? I've posted plenty to support mine elsewhere in this thread.
Would you consider it irrelevant if they refused paid ads from Jews, Blacks, or Homosexuals? I submit that you only consider it irrelevant because you don't consider the right to keep & bear arms just that - a right.
Fair enough - how would you propose to make armed *criminals* stay away from you, if you yourself are unarmed?
Firstly, it's spelled 'cretin' - your gruesome mis-pronunciation of the word is the likely cause of your gruesome mis-spelling of same.
Secondly, so what? If you can disprove their assertions, go ahead. So far, no-one, either here or on K5, has been able to produce stats contradicting theirs.
Untrue - again, if guns are the problem, why do we not see this in Canada? IMO Michael Moore was right that many parts of the USA have a problem with violence. I disagree that it is due to, or related to, the prevalence of firearms however.
Heh - actually, you've (inadvertently) touched on another of my ranting points :-)
Many Libertarians (myself included) consider the contemporary use of the term 'liberal' to be equivalent to domain hijacking, as 'liberal' historically meant support for human rights, minimal Government, no / low compulsory taxation, free trade, etc. etc. See Liberalism, by Ludwig von Mises, for a more thorough treatment of this.
But anyway, thanks greatly for the opportunity for a discussion. It's rare around here! :-)
Yes. Consider Canada, which has comparable firearm ownership rates to the USA, & practically none of the violence. It's a violence problem, not a gun problem.
Check out Gun Facts and my own article Firearms And Self Defense. If you come across anything that contradicts those sources please let me know - as I say in my article, I'm genuinely curious to see such stats, but no-one on K5 or here has yet been able to provide any.
No problem w.r.t. to jumping on you - sometimes, the RKBA movement is it's own worst enemy because of the hostility of many of its members; Libertarians & Objectivists often suffer from the same knee-jerk hostility. It serves no purpose other than to alienate open-minded people & strengthen the resolve of the close-minded.
FWIW, I actually was anti-gun most of my life - until I started reading the stats :-)
It's sad that one has to use a subject tag like that, isn't it? :-(
There's nothing wrong with non-lethals, they're just not as likely to stop an attacker loaded up on PCP, adrenaline & malice. The stats support this, however they also suggest that non-lethals are better than nothing. They also disprove the assertion that carryin a firearm is more dangerous that not carrying (e.g. through negligent discharges, or disarmament).
Certainly, if you don't feel happy carrying a firearm, then non-lethals would be a good choice.
Guns are the most effective form of defense against stranger rape.
Again, if you have any evidence to support your claims, post away. I've posted mine elsewhere in this thread, & so far, no-one's challenged them, only spouted IMHO-disclaimered opinions.
But the stats don't support that opinion - or at least, the stats that I've seen don't. Check out Gun Facts, & my article Firearms And Self Defense.
If you have any stats that suggest otherwise, I'd be keen to see them. So far no-one on K5 has been able to produce any.The U.S.A. has a problem with violence - that's actually where I agree with Michael Moore. However, a gun is your best protection against such violence - especially if you're a woman. See Gun Facts for details.