On 05/31/2012 04:32 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
And then Craig replied:
How pleasant! Governments take money from people through
threats of violence, to subsidize special interests.
[...]
I'm baffled, Craig. How do you go about equating certain government
funded programs that have occasionally helped out the automobile
industry, the electrification of the grid, building hiways, airports,
transistors, integrated circuits, the Internet, and weather satellites
so "special?" as somehow associated with generating threats of
violence.
And there's more...
If you don't pay the government's taxes, which it uses to raise money
for these projects, then they threaten you with violence, and will
ultimately put you in jail.
In _every single case_ there has been a chorus of conservative
people saying "the government should not be picking winners and
loses. If it is real, it will come on its own." Maybe they were
right, but most of those technologies might have been delayed
by 20 to 50 years.
If the technology is cost efficient, then the market will bring
it. Even if delayed by 20 to 50 years, this is a small price to
pay for a moral society run without threats of violence.
It seems to me that you have not heard a single thing Jed sed, or
perhaps you simply are not interested in listening. Certain new
technologies for which Jed was referring to were not cost efficient at
the time they were receiving lots of financial assistance from the
government.
At which times, they were bad business decisions, and did not raise
private capital. This provides the justification for the government to
get involved. But if the risk/reward ratio is low enough, then private
capital will be available. This is how entrepreneurs work. Even if some
of these risky investments turn out to be successful for a few people,
the people whose money was taken, are never compensated.
Under a 100% free-enterprise system I know of few business
enterprises that could justify to their stock holders a plan to make
investments that could take up to 20 - 50 years to start generating
dividends for their stock holders. If free enterprises was the only
game in town funding the development new unproven technologies like
integrated circuitry, electrification of the grid, building highways,
transistors, etc... could have never gotten off the ground. There was
no profit in funding new technologies, especially if the investor
realized he could very well be dead and buried before he gets the
chance to enjoy the fruits of his investments.
And my argument is that if you can't fund the ventures without using
stolen money, then they shouldn't be funded.
You also seem to keep bringing up "threats of violence" which I
presume is somehow equated to government funded programs - I presume
because governments want to tax you and me. Do I have that right?
You're giving me the impression that you have little regard whatsoever
for any kind of government assistance - and what it costs to pay for
such assistance in regards to the affairs of humanity. Do I have that
right?
Yes, correct.
When we make an exception for government and say, well we know that
violence, threats of violence, and aggression are wrong, and while we
would never practice these things in our personal relationships, but
then we allow government to have an exception and use aggression, then
we open the door for every type of aggression that people in power can
dream up. It's this very idea that we 'should' use aggression in certain
cases, which lead to all the wars, debt, inflation, taxation, and the
blossoming police state today. It all comes from the idea that
government is exempt from moral law, and when people on this list start
presenting their political opinions, I'll then point out that they are
making a moral exception for their special programs.
Craig
