How much did the Manhattan Project cost us, not just in monetary cost but in the opportunity cost of all those brilliant scientists who could have been working on something more productive to mankind?
Far be it for a leftist like me to defend military spending but...
Actually a significant number of inventions in the 20th century were created during WW1/WW2 for military purposes (like superglue).
More recently, if I recall correctly, the internet started as a US military project.
And in terms of modern stuff...well, I have my eye on all these drones and whatnot--maybe someday that technology will become household robots.
For all of the horrible nasty downsides of wars, I really don't fee like "slows down the pace of invention" is one of them.
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
More recently, if I recall correctly, the internet started as a US military project.
This is about HALF true. I've linked to plenty of sources debunking it before.
For all of the horrible nasty downsides of wars, I really don't fee like "slows down the pace of invention" is one of them.
Like ALL government spending, it doesn't STOP invention or progress or whatever, it simply misallocates the resources and causes malinvestment. You're right, drone technology may one day lead to the Tacocopter (if the government ever ALLOWS them to proceed), and you're right that the Tacocopter guys will benefit from a lot of research already done by the military, but the simple fact is that those military research costs are essentially dead weight loss. The Tacocopter (or superglue, or the Internet, or whatever else) might not actually be useful enough to society to justify the costs, once you include the initial R&D outlays provided by government. Giving that government operates completely outside of market forces, there's really no way for us to know other than the intuitive notion that if drone technology was likely to result in profitable business ventures, the government wouldn't need to be doing the research, Microsoft or Google would have already been doing it.
After all, isn't Google leading the way on the technology to have cars that drive themselves? That presumably has some military applications, doesn't it? How could this be if we need government to start our research and development efforts for us?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
When you vote for say, a law making marijuana illegal, you ARE using force against others. You are giving the authority to an agent to act on your behalf to use force against others. The fact that you won't do it yourself just makes you a coward. Same thing as when you vote for warmongering politicians.
You misunderstand me. I'm not having an issue with the fact that force is required. Society has no way other than force to really deal with its worst elements. I take issue with having EVERYONE be the user of that force. It places everyone at risk, and furthermore I'd consider a society where I needed to grow food, weave clothes, and everything else to be a failure of a society as well. Leave the fighting to those whose profession is fighting, same as how we do everything else.
Individuals are often illogical. That's the beauty of the market though. The market on the whole, is. A shopkeeper who refused to sell to those under 30 would likely face some stiff competition from one who would be willing to serve anyone. IF there was in fact a significant market for "stores where no young people are allowed in" and he could stay in business, then hey, more power to him. If the 20-somethings don't like it, let them start their own store.
Well, things like it are why youth leave this place in droves the second they're capable of it, and that's without them being actually barred from anywhere. At any rate, any system composed entirely of illogical beings cannot be said to be completely logical. Regardless, I see a scenario in which towns become largely inaccessible to certain groups to be a very poor one indeed. All that really needs to happen for something like that to spiral out of control is an ideology gaining power over a wide area and spreading (I'll admit, I'm mostly referring to religion here) for things to get very, very bad for a minority if there isn't an overwhelming force keeping such ideas from truly taking hold.
What historical examples? How can there be "historical examples" of the problems of a system that has never been tried?
Your system has been more or less used since the dawn of man up until government was established. Clan systems, tribes, those are mostly all voluntarist societies. They work to some degree on those small scales, but they seem to inevitably lead to them going to war against the other clans/tribes. There really isn't any record of a time in history where there weren't any groups warring with or wanting to war with another group.
As far as the "power vacuum" theory goes, I just don't buy it. There is less centralized power in South Korea than there is in North Korea, is there not?
Less centralized government doesn't make for a power vacuum, and the fact that South Korea hasn't been completely wiped off the map proves that a combination of outside military force and their own military force is capable of providing a great deal of power.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn
Your guy's claim is that more freedom = better society to some arbitrary and ill-defined point at which all of a sudden the trend reverses.
Correct, though there are reasons for this. Absolute freedom is contradictory. One man's freedom ends where another's begins. There are no absolute rights that you could get everyone on earth to agree with, and they certainly couldn't agree which are most important. Also, there are plenty of things for which more = better until a certain undefined point. And hell no, I don't trust Obama to figure those sorts of things out, I just think he'd do marginally better than Romney and quite a bit better than everyone else I've really heard much about. At the very least it'd make for a better supreme court.
At this point in society today, perhaps. Although who would sell it to them? ... I'm not sure any organization large enough to have the ability to manufacture something as complicated as a nuclear weapon would be short-sighted enough to sell it to someone likely to use it.
There would be huge profits to be made, shifting into a war footing is amazing profitable for certain industries. And plenty of companies today have done very shortsighted things for money. Corners are cut wherever possible for many businesses. Look at many modern oil companies for example. They ignore issues until a pipe breaks losing them vast amounts of money in loss of oil, loss of customers, and lawsuits. Not to mention the environmental impact. It's really not uncommon to see a business spring up and die because it was poorly thought out, and even the big already established ones do some very stupid things with alarming regularity. There would be a lot of money in selling warheads to people. Nuclear weapons are an extremely cost effective way of waging war in the long run, in part by discouraging further war. If you know your neighbors have them, you want them as well so they can't attack you in fear of being destroyed themselves.
And how has that whole "empire" thing worked out for us. You may be right here, but I think people greatly underestimate the costs that even the losers have to pay.
War isn't just winners and losers. Those who aren't directly part of the war stand to make obscene profit, which was why the states spent most of the war selling weapons to anyone who would buy them. THAT'S where the benefit came from.
I disagree. One side can always surrender. ... That's why when people are mugged, they typically just hand over their wallets. The cost of attempting to resist the mugger is deemed to be higher than the cost of giving in to his demands.
You can only stop if the war is over something specific you can immediately give them. If they want your land, your obedience, or simply want to kill you there's not a hell of a lot you can do without more or less falling into slavery (which is how tyrannical governments come to be in the first place by the way).
--
More people should enter characters for the create a character contest. http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/63514902
What companies have ever gone to war? The only one I can think of that would even come close is the East India Company, and they were SO far in bed with the government that it would be corporatism bordering on fascism. The Pinkertons were really more of a police agency that had some decent power in various localities, but not a huge national presence at any given time.
If companies took on the characteristics of nations (like the East India Co.), they would go to war. Right now they can't because they don't have the power to use violent force, because a government would stop them, and they know the government is more powerful.
You're right that the MORE efficient government wins the war, but the war itself is inefficient for BOTH sides. Tell me, in which 20th century war exactly was the winning party far better off than they were before the war? There are no "winners" in war. Everyone loses.
The United States, in both World War I and World War II. Those two wars made our empire.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Moreover, a war only takes one side to start, unlike a contract, which requires two! You do not need two parties to think war is the best resolution to their problems, only one!
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Also, war is an amazing catalyst for invention. Both world wars lead to huge strides in the creation of new things. It provides a buyer for research and development that often isn't there normally, and funnels huge amounts of resources and manpower into that development. Sure, war isn't necessary for advance, but it does speed it up considerably in many cases.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn
After all, isn't Google leading the way on the technology to have cars that drive themselves? That presumably has some military applications, doesn't it? How could this be if we need government to start our research and development efforts for us?
plenty of companies are, from parallel parking to flat out driving not really trick question
--
Donny: Are they gonna hurt us, Walter? Walter: No, Donny. These men are cowards.
The United States, in both World War I and World War II. Those two wars made our empire.
And how has that whole "empire" thing worked out for us. You may be right here, but I think people greatly underestimate the costs that even the losers have to pay. How many lives did we lose in WW2 exactly? How much did the Manhattan Project cost us, not just in monetary cost but in the opportunity cost of all those brilliant scientists who could have been working on something more productive to mankind? How do you measure the loss in "quality of life" as the entire nation spent four years in rationing because we needed everything "for the war"?
Moreover, a war only takes one side to start, unlike a contract, which requires two! You do not need two parties to think war is the best resolution to their problems, only one!
I disagree. One side can always surrender. Microsoft may desire to go to war with Apple over a patent infringement. Apple can always say, "You know what, it would cost us a LOT more to fight Microsoft than it would to just go ahead and stop using their stupid little patent" and give in to their demands. That's why when people are mugged, they typically just hand over their wallets. The cost of attempting to resist the mugger is deemed to be higher than the cost of giving in to his demands.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Essentially they get funding through lobbying rather than through having an efficient or innovative product.
"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion- When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors- when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed."
I know someone can identify the quote!
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From the "advanced" reading, this one deals with a lot of the objections you guys have raised, and focuses on how many areas of our lives already have private arbitration that works really well.
Also, war is an amazing catalyst for invention. Both world wars lead to huge strides in the creation of new things.
That's because war gives government an incentive to be efficient and to innovate. Like red sox mentioned, the efficient government is the one that wins the war. So while normally, there is no motivation for efficiency, the life-or-death scenario that war allows the government to put their massive amount of resources to good use.
Yeah.
And this also highlights why I don't like America's current warfare research very much (at least compared to WW2 stuff). There's no reason to be efficient. You don't need to be efficient to get funding--in fact, the way most military projects get funding is to be very inefficient--they make a manufacturing plant in every state, so that if any senator opposes funding of the project, they will get angry letters from people losing their jobs. Essentially they get funding through lobbying rather than through having an efficient or innovative product. And the US doesn't get punished for this inefficiency, because hey, it's not like there's an opponent who can really threaten America right now.
It's like those people who get way ahead in a game of Starcraft, and decide it would be a good idea to mass the worst unit in the game. They don't end up losing, because they were way ahead to begin with, but the stuff they're building is still crap....
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
Bleh, I didn't think adblock was mainstream enough yet that it mattered for stuff like this
Interesting stuff about democracy and compromise. It's weird because we are always taught that democracy and compromise are the holy grail of modern societies, when really the unique and special thing about the US was that it's a republic. Most people don't even know there is a difference. Though the Bill of RIghts is an example of one of the best compromises in history, so I guess people think all compromise is like that.
-- _foolmo_ 'and out of the blue and completely unprovoked came foolmo and his insult' - Anagram
So, I got my "Official Republican Party Presidential Platform Survey" in the mail. I started filling it out, then got to the end where it explained that a mandatory $15 donation to the RNC was required in order to "compensate for the costs of tabulating your survey."
**** that, into the garbage it goes. lol mittens, enjoy having your ass kicked by this generation's jimmy carter
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Yeah, one thinks that the top 5% should pay 35% in taxes, and the other thinks the top 5% should pay 40% in taxes. OH MY GOD COMPROMISE IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH SUCH OPPOSED IDEOLOGIES
Uh, no, get your facts straight. Romney wants taxes to be 30% not 35%. Now that's what I call diametrically opposed.
-- _foolmo_ 'Most people at least try to say something funny. See foolmo's post as an example.' - The Real Truth
Also I just learned that VA has a majority of delegates (25/49) for RP hell yeah.
Even though it's by the slimmest of margins, it's still impressive because we have arguably the highest concentration of Romney supporters in the nation. We have all the politicians and kiss-asses and bankers who work in DC and live in northern VA, and we have vast stretches of redneck territory that will blindly vote republican every time. We have a bunch of universities, though, which is probably why Obama won before and why RP is doing well now.
-- _foolmo_ 'Oh please, if foolmo made that analogy you'd think it was picture perfect' - Biolizard28
One of my lefty friends guilted me into not watching the Olympics. He hates it because he thinks sports celebrate competitiveness and discourage compassion and he hates the nationalistic elements because he thinks we should all be citizens of the world. I hate it because I think it symbolizes global bureaucracy and I hate the nationalistic elements because I think the individual should be sovereign.
We both agreed that governments shouldn't be wasting "public" money on an elaborate show that most of the people who actually live there don't even want.
And now Barack Obama comes on the TV telling us that that choice between him and Romney is huge because they are diametrically different.
Yeah, one thinks that the top 5% should pay 35% in taxes, and the other thinks the top 5% should pay 40% in taxes. OH MY GOD COMPROMISE IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH SUCH OPPOSED IDEOLOGIES
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Any word on why Obama's going for 40 and not the full pre-Bush 45? I think people would be happy with going back to Clinton fiscal policy. I'm all in for Clinton spending myself.
Because Obama wants to keep his rich people and corporations happy. And because 45% sounds a lot worse than 40%- 45% is almost at 50%, and 50% is very different psychologically.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
I personally know two individuals who use marijuana to treat PTSD (one is a veteran, one isn't). They report that nothing else works. It's good to know the state is so power-hungry that it would rather see people suffer than admit it was wrong about something.
Reminder: Obama freely admits in his own biography to having been a regular drug user in college. As far as I know (please correct me if I have this wrong) he has never disavowed his use and made public statements of regret. Presumably, if he had a time machine, he would go back in time and throw himself in jail, thus preventing him from ever becoming President of the United States.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
This is off topic, but I just want to cry. It's been 10 years since 2002, TEN YEARS. And I didn't even realize it until a month and a week after July 1, the 10th anniversary of these contests.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
More reading for the AnCap class, this one an unpublished paper by Dr. Murphy regarding how the market would react if global warming were 100% true and real including how this could apply to any large externality. I'm still not 100% sure whether this particular work is "free" or not and I won't post it until I get clarification, but I thought I would share one sentence that made me chuckle, and may make you chuckle more when it is presented without context.
"Someone who sang a Monkees tune while painting his fence would surely be ostracized by respectable people."
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Actually, we only need the first two. The latter two are about what we should do. And if the first two are true, it would not be surprising if the latter two are also true.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Well, you assume that those who would attempt to discredit the "consensus" are doing it only out of free market ideologies and not out of legitimate scientific dissent
Considering that the dissent is coming not from scientists, but from evidently biased businessman and politicians, I'd say my assumption is correct.
Incidentally, scientists who hold conservative political views are still firmly behind AGW. There's really no debate about it, as much as certain non-scientific types have tried to muddy the waters.
(Other similar cases where a political group may attach themselves to a view which goes against scientific consensus: consevatives are more likely to disbelieve evoltion, while liberals are more likely to believe vaccines cause autism. This isn't an isolated case.)
It's not just scientists, incidentally. I will turn around and point out the good of the free market here: there is a business for whom knowledge about this fact isn't just a matter of ideology, but essential to their business: insurance companies. Even if you can't trust scientists out of some paranoia about their politics (I don't think scientists tend to be a highly political group regardless, but you may disagree), you should be able to at least trust these guys.
This isn't to say that what we do about this fact can't be subject to politics, mind.
-- The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.com An unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion
So, are you implying that insurance companies are charging more for people who are more likely to be affected by AGW? If so I'd be VERY interested in reading about that, as it's something I've never heard of before, and I generally DO trust insurance companies to generally know more about pretty much everything than damn near anyone else does.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Actually, we only need the first two. The latter two are about what we should do. And if the first two are true, it would not be surprising if the latter two are also true.
Not necessarily. In fact, I think the third one is hardest. I have yet to encounter anyone who has been willing to give a scientifically based answer to my popular question of "What is the optimum average global temperature?" If the answer to the third one is no, then 1 and 2 become irrelevant. And 4 seems to be something that many environmentalists literally do not care about at all. Environment uber alles.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From what I've heard from the AnCap Facebook pages, there ARE occasional raids by federal agents leading to shutdowns of dispensaries in California. Not on all of them. As usual, they pick winners and losers.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
