Taxes is not Theft

[Anonymous]

The state subsidization doesn't mean it couldn't of thrived without it. There's the possibility it could of done better if the state wasn't involved.

[1714912490]

1714912490

[1714912490]

1714912490

[1714912490]

1714912490

[kiba]

Specialized research rarely ever achieves the desired result. We shouldn't put faith in frivolous miracles that may come from these causes. Results are produced by stringent purpose and through actually knowing that results WILL be actually achieved. Invest your dollar in businesses that will achieve genuine innovation.

Audrey de Grey propose anti-aging approach based on engineering approach rather than trying to interfere with complicated and essential metabolic process.

[ribuck]

Bell labs was part of Ma Bell.

Bell Telephone Labs Inc was a separate entity, jointly owned by AT&T and Western Electric. Although those corporations enjoyed government-protected monopoly status, Bell Labs did not, nor was it taxpayer-funded.

[gene]

Date and period when it was a state-subsidized monopoly?

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

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

The Bell System was the American Bell Telephone Company, an AT&T led organization that provided telephone service in the United States from 1877 to 1984, at various times as a monopoly. In 1984, a Federal mandate broke the company up into separate companies.

[...]

The 1984 Bell System divestiture brought an end to the affiliation branded as the Bell System. It resulted from another antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1974, alleging illegal practices by the Bell System companies to stifle competition in the telecommunications industry. The suit was settled on 8 January 1982, superseding the former restrictions that AT&T and the DOJ had agreed in 1956.

[...]

In 1934, the government set AT&T up as a regulated monopoly under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, in the Communications Act of 1934.

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

[gene]

Bell Telephone Labs Inc was a separate entity, jointly owned by AT&T and Western Electric. Although those corporations enjoyed government-protected monopoly status, Bell Labs did not, nor was it taxpayer-funded.

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

Bell Laboratories (also known as Bell Labs and formerly known as AT&T Bell Laboratories and Bell Telephone Laboratories) is the research and development organization of Alcatel-Lucent and previously of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T).

For completeness.

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

Western Electric Company (sometimes abbreviated WE and WECo) was an American electrical engineering company, the manufacturing arm of AT&T from 1881 to 1995. It was the scene of a number of technological innovations and also some seminal developments in industrial management. It also served as the purchasing agent for the member companies of the Bell System.

[...]

In 1915, Western Electric Manufacturing was incorporated in New York, New York as a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, under the name Western Electric Company, Inc[1].

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

[Anonymous]

Gene, what gender are you?

[ribuck]

Bell Telephone Labs Inc was a separate entity, jointly owned by AT&T and Western Electric. Although those corporations enjoyed government-protected monopoly status, Bell Labs did not, nor was it taxpayer-funded.

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

You found the right Wikipedia page. Why did you quote some random tangential excerpts instead of the part that is directly relevant:

"Formal Organization: In 1925 Western Electric Research Laboratories and part of the engineering department of the American Telephone & Telegraph company (AT&T) were consolidated to form Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., as a separate entity ... The ownership of Bell Laboratories was evenly split between AT&T and the Western Electric Company." (emphasis mine)

It confirms what I was saying.

[Anonymous]

*wonders at the opportunity cost of statism.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Liberals have two lines of argument against those who reject the idea of the social contract. The first is that if they reject it, they should not consume the government's goods and services. How they can avoid this when the very dollar bills that the economy runs on are printed by the government is a good question. Try to imagine participating in the economy without using public roads, publicly funded communication infrastructure, publicly educated employees, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, technology, research and development -- it's absolutely impossible.

Visualizing... ... ... ... ... ...yes!

[caveden]

I stopped reading here, for I don't remember having signed anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQdw2K59x4



The larger video from which this small one was extracted is really good too, if you have some time I recommend.

[caveden]

Unfortunately, it failed. Roads are not public goods

They are.

There's no such a thing as "public good". By good I mean "property". There's no "public property". To own something you have to be able to make decisions about this something. An entity that's not capable of making decisions can't own anything.

The "public", as any other abstract collective determined by arbitrary definitions, can't make any decision.

Only individuals and organizations can make decisions. And organizations can only make them indirectly, by the inner rules that make them be. Such rules delegates each decision to a rational individual that decides for the organization.

So, the government, yes, it can possess stuff and make decisions for them. The "public" can't, as that's not an organization or rational entity.
And I used the work "possess" to make a distinction, since governments can't rightfully own anything, since everything they have was either stolen or produced with stolen resources. They control stuff by force only.

[gene]

[proceeds to ignore that Western Electric, Bells labs and AT&T were all subsidiaries of the Bell System]

Here, let me help.

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

Before the 1984 break-up, the Bell System consisted of the companies listed below.

[...]

AT&T Inc., a currently existing holding company

[...]

# Alcatel-Lucent, a currently existing equipment/research company

    * Lucent Technologies, Inc., a research company spun off separately in 1995 and merged with Alcatel in 2006
          o Western Electric, a former telecommunications and recording equipment-manufacturing company that ceased to have that name as of the 1984 break-up
          o Bell Labs, the former AT&T-corporate research unit

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.

[ribuck]

Gene, it feels to me like you're one of those people who post because they enjoy the attention they get from those who reply.

I apologise in advance if you are actually interested in what other people have to say.

But either way I'm tired of it. You may have the last word.

[gene]

Gene, it feels to me like you're one of those people who post because they enjoy the attention they get from those who reply.

I apologise in advance if you are actually interested in what other people have to say.

But either way I'm tired of it. You may have the last word.

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.

[Anonymous]

Gene, it feels to me like you're one of those people who post because they enjoy the attention they get from those who reply.

I apologise in advance if you are actually interested in what other people have to say.

But either way I'm tired of it. You may have the last word.

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.

You have yet to prove this.

[gene]

Gene, it feels to me like you're one of those people who post because they enjoy the attention they get from those who reply.

I apologise in advance if you are actually interested in what other people have to say.

But either way I'm tired of it. You may have the last word.

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.

You have yet to prove this.

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.

[Anonymous]

Here's your evidence:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-emotional-intelligence-empowers-positive-attitudes.html

[gene]

Here's your evidence:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-emotional-intelligence-empowers-positive-attitudes.html

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

[grondilu]

I don't care if taxes and public funding are more efficient for research, scientific developpement or whatever.  It is probably.

I'm pretty sure that a scientist will be more efficient if you give him one hundred slaves to help him for his research (building him a home, a laboratory, shining his shoes, whatever...).

It's not the matter.  With the same ideas, we could solve unemployement by rehabilitating slavery.


Domestication of humans is probably an efficient economic model.  I have no doubt about that.  Still, I don't want to be part of it.

[gene]

I don't care if taxes and public funding are more efficient for research, scientific developpement or whatever.  It is probably.

I'm pretty sure that a scientist will be more efficient if you give him one hundred slaves to help him for his research (building him a home, a laboratory, shining his shoes, whatever...).

It's not the matter.  With the same ideas, we could solve unemployement by rehabilitating slavery.


Domestication of humans is probably an efficient economic model.  I have no doubt about that.  Still, I don't want to be part of it.

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.