Politics And Religion

[Peter Parka]

History, science, philosophy, political theory. It's all over the tests, especially the international ones which aren't predicated upon protecting the reputation of these incompetent lying hacks in the school system.

Science is making new advancements all the time, how is that a lowering of knowledge?:unsure:

 

[All Else Failed]

You see, from the perspective of economics, what your saying is literally impossible. That is a fundamental roadblock in this discussion. Again, there is nothing wrong with ignorance in these areas - I certainly don't know a damn thing about trout fishing or meterology - but these fields are prerequisites for meaningful discussion of political theory and one should not hold a vociforous opinion on a subject when one is admittedly ignorant of vast tracts of information which bear upon it.

Interesting, so is your philosophy.

 

[LiberalVichy]

What Won't Nasa Invent Next? - Tim Swanson - Mises Institute
This is a short article called 'What Won't NASA Invent Next' giving an empirical counter-example to the theory that the government is responsible or increases innovation/science. But there is a far more relevant general theory behind it, of which these are only confirming instances.

 

[All Else Failed]

Its not mainly responsible, it just helps and contributes. Seriously, do you know anyone who is in a government funded research program right now? I know several, and they all admit that they wouldn't be doing their important work without the proper funds. One is working on oral tablets that will give diabetics insulin without having to take shots.


Imagine if there was no NSF, for example.

 

[LiberalVichy]

Dupont, for example, invests far less with far more to show for it in the area of molecular science and quantum physics. Beyond that (investment for use), if some guy wants to work on string theory he can, but if he wants to point a gun at me to fund his experiments he can go to hell. It's nonsense to say that anyone 'benefits' by being robbed and having their money transferred to scientists and whatnot, since if they valued those things they could (directly or through companies like DuPont and Bayer) direct their money towards R&D. It really makes absolutely no sense to say people 'benefit' from something they weren't willing to pay for. The only standard of benefit is what individual people want. THE ONLY. Ever.

 

[Peter Parka]

if some guy wants to work on string theory he can, but if he wants to point a gun at me to fund his experiments he can go to hell.

In a society you suggest, there wouldn't be anything to stop him.

 

[All Else Failed]

Dupont, for example, invests far less with far more to show for it in the area of molecular science and quantum physics. Beyond that (investment for use), if some guy wants to work on string theory he can, but if he wants to point a gun at me to fund his experiments he can go to hell. It's nonsense to say that anyone 'benefits' by being robbed and having their money transferred to scientists and whatnot, since if they valued those things they could (directly or through companies like DuPont and Bayer) direct their money towards R&D. It really makes absolutely no sense to say people 'benefit' from something they weren't willing to pay for. The only standard of benefit is what individual people want. THE ONLY. Ever.

You're missing my point. If that money wasn't there, those important advancements wouldn't be either. You'd be worse off.

 

[LiberalVichy]

That money ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE WE MAKE IT. We give it to people who give us what we want - such as DuPont - and that's how real, useful technical advancement occurs. Nothing else can be rationally posited as 'valuable'.

 

[All Else Failed]

That money ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE WE MAKE IT. We give it to people who give us what we want - such as DuPont - and that's how real, useful technical advancement occurs. Nothing else can be rationally posited as 'valuable'.

What if dupont needs more money for advancement? Do you simply make more money? What kind of economy is that? Do you force them to do things if they refuse?

 

[LiberalVichy]

If no one wants to carry on research for the price you're willing to pay, that's your problem. No one else's life and productivity can rationally said to belong to you; no matter how disappointed you are in the music and cars available.
'More money' is nonsense, money is nothing more than a medium of exchange representing non-consumption of wealth. I make a shoe and get five bucks, that's five bucks of stuff I created and have yet to consume. Without an understanding of what money is it's impossible to understand how the economy works at all.

http://bastiat.org/en/what_is_money.html

 

[All Else Failed]

If no one wants to carry on research for the price you're willing to pay, that's your problem. No one else's life and productivity can rationally said to belong to you; no matter how disappointed you are in the music and cars available.
'More money' is nonsense, money is nothing more than a medium of exchange representing non-consumption of wealth. I make a shoe and get five bucks, that's five bucks of stuff I created and have yet to consume. Without an understanding of what money is it's impossible to understand how the economy works at all.

http://bastiat.org/en/what_is_money.html

so YOU are forcing people like dupont to ask for a certain price for their research, even if the research costs more and they need it.

 

[LiberalVichy]

No, I'm saying I won't pay if they don't offer it at a price I'm willing to pay. They don't have a 'right' to my money, nor do I have a right to their research. 'Needs' do not create rights.