"Why was there a boom in American science education during the space race, because everyone wanted to go to the moon too. However they couldn't but they learned science and math and created a modern nation. But these people are retiring and not being replaced. The moon is once again to far and distant for us, Mars is a place where robots roam, and were we can make fun the remaining scientist when they fail."
It really wasn't intended to be a troll. You said that the ISS made sense -- in what way? It's an overpriced, under-performing albatross around American (and some other countries') taxpayers' necks.
Ignore for the moment the fact that you want to do all these things with other people's money.
- There are plenty of ambitious things going on being paid for by the people doing them. - Anyone who doesn't believe we've been to the moon is an idiot. - I have no idea how to translate your paragraph on education. Are you saying you can't get a science or engineering degree without a space station? - Your last sentence, well, wtf?
If you are an American, you might want to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights regarding those silly things called "rights" that you are sick of.
If you want further insight (and I think you need it), look into John Locke. In a nutshell, natural rights, which you shall not take away via social contract are life, liberty, and estate (or property).
I agree with some of what you say, and disagree with more of what you say.
To keep it short, the biggest difference I have with you is the idea that the government's role is unbounded. This is very much different from what the Constitution explicitly says. The Constitution explicitly states what the roles are for the federal government -- and it doesn't include giving health care, bailouts, or XBOXs to some at the expense (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) of others.
I strongly agree with you regarding idiotic wars and privacy. But you can't use these wrongs to justify yet another wrong.
Finally, I never said greed was good -- just that it wasn't bad immoral. Greed is amoral -- neither "good" nor "bad." Ayn Rand (who you brought up) never said that greedy sociopaths are good for society, she said that greedy people are good for capitalist society and that capitalism is the only amoral way to allocate resources. Sociopaths, greedy or giving, are, by definition, bad for society.
"Thus if there is millions of people with a problem, it is the governments job to help, by its very existence."
This is simply not true. Just because you, or even if all of us, have a problem, the government isn't there to be our nanny. Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own well-being -- not the government. Moreover, by forcing me to pay for someone else's heathcare, you are forcing me to work for someone else -- slavery by any name and not hyperbole.
Finally, there is nothing immoral about greed or egotism. I would offer you a friendly challenge to tell me why you feel otherwise.
The government neither generates the resources to build roads nor markets "building roads" to anyone other than themselves. Therefore, they don't build roads any more than your or I do.
The free market (capitalism) allocates resources better than any other system. Name one, just one, that does a better job. Best I can tell, you think some benevolent government official can. Even if that were true (and it isn't), what happens when he goes away or the problem scales up?
I do believe that privatized roads could work, but that wasn't the point of my (or your) post. Your point was that the government is good at producing things other that hindrances -- it isn't. The government is horrible at allocating resources. It should be the last resort for anything.
Moreover, the federal government should be limited to doing those things outlined in the Constitution. Roads (beyond interstate highways) don't make that cut. For everything else, state and local governments (and therefore state and local residents) will have to decide how much money to waste.
The government doesn't produce anything -- not even the road network. The government takes the resources to build the road network at the barrel of a gun from taxpayers. The government then gives the money to a construction business to build the road network.
Worse, the government is terrible at allocating scare resources -- see also central planning. The best way to allocate scarce resources is the free market. It isn't perfect, but it's better than anything else.
Health care is not a right. If you make it a right, you subject the rest of us to indentured servitude. In other words, you make everyone else a slave. That might work in your country (which is?), but we got rid of slavery in the 1800s.
There is a reason you don't have $100,000 of your own money: your idea sucks. Go spend the $20 you do have and make $50. Rinse, lather, and repeat till you have $100,000 and your ideas are wiser. then risk your own damn money.
If you were to be given $100,000 today, you'd just waste it on $20 ideas.
The number of ignorant posts that have responded to Joey is scary to say the least. The best of the worst subscribe to the nightmare that is Keynesian economics. The worst of the worst actually believe that the government can actually create jobs and spend ourselves out of a recession.
I am very happy that you don't like Eve. The game that you seem to want is the exact opposite of the game that I want to play that is Eve. You couldn't even make it through the tutorial - you wouldn't have lasted long anyway.
I like the hard learning curve. I like the rush of non-consensual PvP. I live the fact that Eve has an API. And most importantly, I like the fact that Eve isn't attractive to the 13-year-old mindset that rules WoW.
This game is unlike any other. It has been around forever and is still steadily growing in player count -- players that don't whine like you. Come out to 0.0 in Eve -- we'll give you a chance to learn...
Eve Online. Runs on all three. Hit 45,000+ concurrent users this month -- a new record. Old game? Yes, but the devs are adding new content AND gameplay all the time.
I suspect what you call the "aggregator" is the guy who provided the capital for the enterprise in question. Capital that provided the programmer the computer to program on. Capital that provided the fry cook a grill to cook on. Capital that provided the cash register that the cashier uses.
The "aggregator" had to acquire this capital at some point -- by working for it. Does he deserve a share of the profit? Absolutely.
I am very comfortable taking that "I own the fruits of my labor" as an axiom. If you are not, then we have a disagreement that will have to be solved by means of force.
Are you suggesting I don't own or have a right to the fruits of my labor? Or are you saying that I don't truly own some some critical input that was used in generating my capital -- say, the land my factory sits on? I believe the former is self-evident. The latter is perhaps more complicated, but can be resolved.
No. You are the one that needs to provide proof because by supporting this program you plan to take his (and everyone else's) shit. Brain0918 doesn't plan on taking anyone's shit, so he doesn't have to prove anything.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why was there a boom in American science education during the space race, because everyone wanted to go to the moon too. However they couldn't but they learned science and math and created a modern nation. But these people are retiring and not being replaced. The moon is once again to far and distant for us, Mars is a place where robots roam, and were we can make fun the remaining scientist when they fail."
Yeah, you are right. I can't comprehend this.
It really wasn't intended to be a troll. You said that the ISS made sense -- in what way? It's an overpriced, under-performing albatross around American (and some other countries') taxpayers' necks.
Pure bullshit.
Ignore for the moment the fact that you want to do all these things with other people's money.
- There are plenty of ambitious things going on being paid for by the people doing them.
- Anyone who doesn't believe we've been to the moon is an idiot.
- I have no idea how to translate your paragraph on education. Are you saying you can't get a science or engineering degree without a space station?
- Your last sentence, well, wtf?
"But if the public could be made to understand the value of this program maybe interest would revive in space again. "
Please "make" me understand the value of this program.
[palegray dealloc]
If you are an American, you might want to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights regarding those silly things called "rights" that you are sick of.
If you want further insight (and I think you need it), look into John Locke. In a nutshell, natural rights, which you shall not take away via social contract are life, liberty, and estate (or property).
I agree with some of what you say, and disagree with more of what you say.
To keep it short, the biggest difference I have with you is the idea that the government's role is unbounded. This is very much different from what the Constitution explicitly says. The Constitution explicitly states what the roles are for the federal government -- and it doesn't include giving health care, bailouts, or XBOXs to some at the expense (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) of others.
I strongly agree with you regarding idiotic wars and privacy. But you can't use these wrongs to justify yet another wrong.
Finally, I never said greed was good -- just that it wasn't bad immoral. Greed is amoral -- neither "good" nor "bad." Ayn Rand (who you brought up) never said that greedy sociopaths are good for society, she said that greedy people are good for capitalist society and that capitalism is the only amoral way to allocate resources. Sociopaths, greedy or giving, are, by definition, bad for society.
"Thus if there is millions of people with a problem, it is the governments job to help, by its very existence."
This is simply not true. Just because you, or even if all of us, have a problem, the government isn't there to be our nanny. Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own well-being -- not the government. Moreover, by forcing me to pay for someone else's heathcare, you are forcing me to work for someone else -- slavery by any name and not hyperbole.
Finally, there is nothing immoral about greed or egotism. I would offer you a friendly challenge to tell me why you feel otherwise.
The government neither generates the resources to build roads nor markets "building roads" to anyone other than themselves. Therefore, they don't build roads any more than your or I do.
The free market (capitalism) allocates resources better than any other system. Name one, just one, that does a better job. Best I can tell, you think some benevolent government official can. Even if that were true (and it isn't), what happens when he goes away or the problem scales up?
I do believe that privatized roads could work, but that wasn't the point of my (or your) post. Your point was that the government is good at producing things other that hindrances -- it isn't. The government is horrible at allocating resources. It should be the last resort for anything.
Moreover, the federal government should be limited to doing those things outlined in the Constitution. Roads (beyond interstate highways) don't make that cut. For everything else, state and local governments (and therefore state and local residents) will have to decide how much money to waste.
The government doesn't produce anything -- not even the road network. The government takes the resources to build the road network at the barrel of a gun from taxpayers. The government then gives the money to a construction business to build the road network.
Worse, the government is terrible at allocating scare resources -- see also central planning. The best way to allocate scarce resources is the free market. It isn't perfect, but it's better than anything else.
Health care is not a right. If you make it a right, you subject the rest of us to indentured servitude. In other words, you make everyone else a slave. That might work in your country (which is?), but we got rid of slavery in the 1800s.
There is a reason you don't have $100,000 of your own money: your idea sucks. Go spend the $20 you do have and make $50. Rinse, lather, and repeat till you have $100,000 and your ideas are wiser. then risk your own damn money.
If you were to be given $100,000 today, you'd just waste it on $20 ideas.
Despite the funny name, Joey is spot on here.
The number of ignorant posts that have responded to Joey is scary to say the least. The best of the worst subscribe to the nightmare that is Keynesian economics. The worst of the worst actually believe that the government can actually create jobs and spend ourselves out of a recession.
I am very happy that you don't like Eve. The game that you seem to want is the exact opposite of the game that I want to play that is Eve. You couldn't even make it through the tutorial - you wouldn't have lasted long anyway.
I like the hard learning curve. I like the rush of non-consensual PvP. I live the fact that Eve has an API. And most importantly, I like the fact that Eve isn't attractive to the 13-year-old mindset that rules WoW.
This game is unlike any other. It has been around forever and is still steadily growing in player count -- players that don't whine like you. Come out to 0.0 in Eve -- we'll give you a chance to learn...
Eve Online. Runs on all three. Hit 45,000+ concurrent users this month -- a new record. Old game? Yes, but the devs are adding new content AND gameplay all the time.
Eve never fades. :)
Actually, I see no coercion of any kind in capitalism.
You have a very strange definition of coercion. No one is forcing you to work. No one is forcing your employer to hire you.
Please don't take my post as a threat -- I assumed we were having a hypothetical discussion.
Having said that, and assuming you are American, I am astounded that you can dismiss your liberty with so much alacrity. You are but a slave.
Capitalism involves no coercion. All others do.
I suspect what you call the "aggregator" is the guy who provided the capital for the enterprise in question. Capital that provided the programmer the computer to program on. Capital that provided the fry cook a grill to cook on. Capital that provided the cash register that the cashier uses.
The "aggregator" had to acquire this capital at some point -- by working for it. Does he deserve a share of the profit? Absolutely.
I am very comfortable taking that "I own the fruits of my labor" as an axiom. If you are not, then we have a disagreement that will have to be solved by means of force.
Are you suggesting I don't own or have a right to the fruits of my labor? Or are you saying that I don't truly own some some critical input that was used in generating my capital -- say, the land my factory sits on? I believe the former is self-evident. The latter is perhaps more complicated, but can be resolved.
A third-party rating organization isn't regulation.
No. You are the one that needs to provide proof because by supporting this program you plan to take his (and everyone else's) shit. Brain0918 doesn't plan on taking anyone's shit, so he doesn't have to prove anything.
Wanna be tyrants are everywhere...