That's a pretty big "as long as."


I wouldn't have a problem with you becoming a hermit if you elect not to participate in society. However, we should remember that freedom isn't absolute. One's freedom may impose on another's. This problem is not magically handled by anything that you're proposing.


I await counterexamples. The examples provided by ribuck were the result of public support via taxes.


Historically, science has occurred at universities or (far more rarely) done by bored, rich people. Typically, the first priorities for humans are to make a living, so it depends on what priorities private corporations have. These priorities are typically to make money, not advance the state of knowledge.

You are placing undue trust in the ability for a base instinct like greed to actually improve our lives. In my experience, greed is not a constructive impulse.


This is true, although probably not in the way you would like to imagine.


And that is your choice, but I think most people would rather have improved medicine, communications, etc. than the freedom to live outside of society.

Rest assured that I did not mean to condescend. I think that Atlas is honestly trying to discuss the topic, but that the terms of the discussion can be improved. I think that he is young because I used to discuss things in the same terms when I was young.

I suspect that you're young and maybe a little inexperienced in discussing these matters with somebody who disagrees with you, but let me explain why I will ignore that paragraph.

The first part is a classic example of begging the question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

It is also filled with loaded terms.

Finally, a hypothesis or theory cannot be proved. The best one can do is to try to disprove the null hypothesis.

Red herring. Nobody here has advocated for slavery. In fact, I regard unregulated private capital accumulation as a rapid path in that direction. History provides ample evidence for this.

The topic here is taxes - contributions by those who live in a in a healthy democracy to implement what the people have decided is in their best interest. In the case of high-tech advances, basically every such development has occurred as a result of public funds. DARPA, NASA, NIH, NSF and countless other programs in the US have funded most of the major technologies of the 20th century. The rest have been funded with the help of tax-subsidization, often in the form of protection from having to actually compete in a market.

The mountain of examples does not prove that basic research requires public funds (nothing can prove a theory or hypothesis, as a high-school student understands), but the lack of counter-examples is itself quite damning evidence.

The study was conducted at a public university. Which means that taxes helped pay for it...

Theories can't be proven; they can only be disproved. So far, there is no evidence that shows that businesses are better able to perform basic research than public institutions. No evidence has been presented by you, for instance. On the other hand, I presented evidence of major technologies developed with the help of taxes.

 

I did answer you, on the last page:

This is incoherent. Bitcoin is not a business. It is a currency, sort of.

I appreciate your frustration, but rest assured that I am truly interested when people try to make bogus arguments about scientific research. In this case, the false claim was that the transistor and other technologies were the product of private corporate research in the absence of public funds (which doesn't really even exist). Much of what passes as private research stems from one form or another of government subsidy, as I'm sure you know.

I responded to your false claim that Bell Labs was somehow independent of the Bell System (Ma Bell). This example of "private research" (transistor and other tech by Bell Labs) was shown to be a product of government subsidy. Since you (correctly) no longer contest this, I feel the point has been made.

Add the examples from Bell Labs to the long list of technologies that would not exist today if it weren't for publicly-subsidized (funded via taxes) research.

Just in case you think I'm ignoring your other example, Xerox PARC got its start thanks to DARPA grants (which also funded the research that led to what we now call the internet) at Stanford. More tax money.

The Point
I think it is worth discussing how a company which must realize quarterly profits to justify its existence can sponsor basic research that won't provide marketable products for many years. This is ultimately why such work must be funded by some other entity, such as the public through taxes. It is an important question, and nobody here sees that this is the point I am trying to raise.

They are cheerleaders for unregulated business. Several posters here are right there with them.

Help me understand the distinction. What do you think of unregulated business?

Nice false equivalence.

Also, flying cars (airplanes?) are not exactly new technology. The absurd proposition that they make for good personal transport is what I find laughable. Aside from what is an extremely energy-intensive task (flying - a bit less efficient that rolling) you now have to handle navigation in 3 dimensions of unconstrained space. With many many other operators. This seems... unrealistic.

But keep bringing it up. Extra points for building and flying around in one. Super extra points for becoming an hero.

Here, let me help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_system#Subsidiaries_and_Bell_operating_companies_today


It was one enormous conglomerate which enjoyed its position as a government-subsidized monopoly. This means that it made money by not having to compete in a market. This is effectively a tax, albeit one that you don't seem to recognize.

You seem to be opposed to markets, since you presented the case of Bell Labs (a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the Bell System monopoly) as an example of innovation. Failure... so sad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_labs

For completeness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Electric

And you don't think being a government-subsidized monopoly helped things along?

Since you apparently can't be bothered to do a simple search:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_Bell


For reference, they did the transistor thing in 1947 or so.

An inventor or programmer should be able to dictate the terms of use of his work, for some period of time not to exceed his life.

Bell labs was part of Ma Bell.

A massive state-subsidized monopoly.

 

It isn't. In the US at least, copyright infringement is legally a distinct offense from theft.

Did somebody have testicular cancer?


They are.


Give an example. I hope it won't be underwhelming.

Statist. What an awesome word.


This has not been shown. This is repeatedly conjectured (no evidence) by the fine people at mises.org. Also, companies don't actually like competition, which is why they spend so much time and money trying to distort markets. So the conditions which are supposed to foster this fabled competition don't even exist. They definitely won't exist if it is up to them. So this argument, which is critical for everything else that supposedly follows, falls pathetically flat.


This "literature" amounts to what is essentially an echo chamber of unsubstantiated conjecture. Funded by the likes of the Koch bros, let's not forget. Propaganda which teenaged suburbia dwellers and middle-aged white men just eat right up. This is not meant as an ad-hominem, incidentally. Those are perhaps the most important target demographics for this sort of claptrap, as professed by the spinmasters themselves.


He was being serious?  He did mention flying cars, didn't he?


Probably what happens to shut-ins and recluses today. They languish in isolation. Or they write existential poetry. Most people won't care if you refuse to participate, as you're not controlling some important resource.

Now, if rich people, who made their money in large part because of favorable conditions established by society, don't want to give back to that society, then they will have to answer to their peers. Here is what separates you and me: I trust people to make the proper choices. In the old days, they used to tar and feather those people. I don't think that would happen today, but most likely, rich people who refuse to give anything back (via taxes) would have to face fines. This seems reasonable to most people and to me. It fits the offense.


This is my favorite (semi-incoherent) quote in this thread.


Statements of fact don't say much about the person who utters them. I'll also note that the irresistible impulse to affix appellations is symptomatic of the tribalism I mentioned earlier.


Demonstrably untrue. Houston is a glaringly obvious example.


I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-communist" or what this has to do with the fact that public transportation and roads are funded via taxes. You are not providing any instance of a functional system of privately-owned transportation infrastructure. Nobody here has. I think we know why.

Look, for all of you who hate roads, just build your flying car and have at it. Just don't expect any tax-funded air traffic controllers to help you navigate or tax-funded paramedics/firemen to scrape your body from the impact site when you realize what "an herioc" idea it truly was.

Sorry, the "jetsons" image just makes me mock like a mofo.


With respect to urban sprawl, you're providing the perfect instance to make my point. Thank you.


And yet, this is precisely the sort of central planning that large media conglomerates are currently trying to establish. They are openly planning on how to control the infrastructure (paid for by taxes, of course) so as to allow them to double-bill media "producers" and "consumers." To try to make the internet just like cable television. Thank you again.

Because until such a time as private power can be kept in check without a mediating force, expect to be taken advantage of by private power. Democracy is the best way we know of to handle this problem. Democracy gives each person equal power. Markets assign power based on money.


Um, private "security" (mercs). This is so obvious as to be embarrassing. It has happened before and will happen again. Concentration of power and capital does not require a state.

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA. Oh. Oh. Flying cars... ok, I'm better now.


Again, we can see right now, today the effects of what you are advocating and compare to what I am advocating. Look at those red dots and blue dots. Let's discuss how those commie statist red dots managed to get things done. Well, it wasn't by deregulation and without taxes.