Made me laugh.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
The private sector would have NEVER put the resources at scientistâs disposal that got America to the moon. Never. Ever. What company or corporation would have told its shareholders âwait, weâre going to the moon cos itâs a matter of national pride and maybe military necessityâŠprofitable return? why, none in the foreseeable future! But letâs GO!â
[/quote]
When I hear âpublic sectorâ I think âgovtâ
When I hear âprivate sectorâ I think âindividuals and specific groups they choose to associate withâ
You say that the âprivate sectorâ could NEVER raise that kind of funding, but I disagree - look around you. If these thread participants werenât already taxed to the gills, what makes you so sure that they and many others wouldnât be willing to provide massive funding for projects and programs that they believe in?
If you cut all that govt spending and allow people / groups (AKA corporations) to pay precisely what and when they want to whichever programs and projects they want, how can you say which awesome stuff wouldnât happen? Iâd bet that overnight welfare would get cut in half. And I donât think youâre justified in saying that NASA would as well - in fact I imagine it would increase, LOTS of people would love to be associated with something like that - some more than others.
I think people who advocate for a free market have a very different perspective than the one you hinted at (or at least that my biasedness had me perceiving that you did) - Example:
vs. my own wording
The free market isnât a bunch of corporations towering over you and sucking out every last penny. Oh sure, they probably would if they could - but they canât because you choose. In other words, what Iâm saying is an uncheatable open ended system of direct democracy. No internet voting, no hacking, no stolen votes⊠no lying politicians - nothing of the sort. Everyone âvotes with there dollarsâ on what they truly believe in rather than some thieves up in Washington dumping everyone elseâs money. But Iâm not talking about anarchy (actually⊠maybe I amâŠI dunno much about it), Iâm thinking about our ultra bloated âpublic sectorâ being put up on the chopping block by each and every individual, while still keeping a solid constitutional republic behind all that
To which some of you will immediately start thinking âbut then nothing will ever get done, people are greedy!!â. I disagree, anything would get done that enough people are serious about. A lot of crap would get cut though - thats fa sho!
I think the problem here is trying to make the Public and Private contribution to scientific advancement an âeither/orâ proposition.
Itâs both.
Whatâs interesting is that I can almost guarantee you that the SCIENTIST involved in both sectors would agree; itâs the âpuristâ and âideologuesâ who disagree.
Mufasa
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
The private sector would have NEVER put the resources at scientistâs disposal that got America to the moon. Never. Ever. What company or corporation would have told its shareholders âwait, weâre going to the moon cos itâs a matter of national pride and maybe military necessityâŠprofitable return? why, none in the foreseeable future! But letâs GO!â
[/quote]
When I hear âpublic sectorâ I think âgovtâ
When I hear âprivate sectorâ I think âindividuals and specific groups they choose to associate withâ
You say that the âprivate sectorâ could NEVER raise that kind of funding, but I disagree - look around you. If these thread participants werenât already taxed to the gills, what makes you so sure that they and many others wouldnât be willing to provide massive funding for projects and programs that they believe in?
If you cut all that govt spending and allow people / groups (AKA corporations) to pay precisely what and when they want to whichever programs and projects they want, how can you say which awesome stuff wouldnât happen? Iâd bet that overnight welfare would get cut in half. And I donât think youâre justified in saying that NASA would as well - in fact I imagine it would increase, LOTS of people would love to be associated with something like that - some more than others.
I think people who advocate for a free market have a very different perspective than the one you hinted at (or at least that my biasedness had me perceiving that you did) - Example:
vs. my own wording
The free market isnât a bunch of corporations towering over you and sucking out every last penny. Oh sure, they probably would if they could - but they canât because you choose. In other words, what Iâm saying is an uncheatable open ended system of direct democracy. No internet voting, no hacking, no stolen votes⊠no lying politicians - nothing of the sort. Everyone âvotes with there dollarsâ on what they truly believe in rather than some thieves up in Washington dumping everyone elseâs money. But Iâm not talking about anarchy (actually⊠maybe I amâŠI dunno much about it), Iâm thinking about our ultra bloated âpublic sectorâ being put up on the chopping block by each and every individual, while still keeping a solid constitutional republic behind all that
To which some of you will immediately start thinking âbut then nothing will ever get done, people are greedy!!â. I disagree, anything would get done that enough people are serious about. A lot of crap would get cut though - thats fa sho![/quote]
I didnât say âcould neverâ. I said âWOULD neverâ. Huge difference. Precisely for the reasons I went on to give.
Your post sounded like one of those âfree market can solve all the worldâs illsâ utopian rants that seem to have supplanted communism could rants these days. Both are deluded and both are wrong.
Nothing I said was anti free market or pro bigger government bloat. The govt spend on NASA is miniscule in relation to other federal agencies far as I remember.
Since you want to speculate about how things could be or have been, please tell me how the moon landings would have happened without direct accelerated federal spend. Who wouldâve got it done?
And I agree, the free market isnât a bunch of corporations towering over you and sucking out every last penny. Itâs not anything. Itâs a hypothesis. An abstract. You can have freer markets, relative to one another or to themselves over time. But a free market? Never existed and never will. Freer IS better than less free. But there is still a role for govt in even the freest system to spend public money in areas that are supported by a majority of the populace.
Part of being in a society is the realization that not all the things you support will get the funding you think they deserve or vice versa, and that applies to every member of that society. Thatâs social living, you relinquish certain freedoms in order to gain others that the collective society extends to their members.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I think the problem here is trying to make the Public and Private contribution to scientific advancement an âeither/orâ proposition.
Itâs both.
Whatâs interesting is that I can almost guarantee you that the SCIENTIST involved in both sectors would agree; itâs the âpuristâ and âideologuesâ who disagree.
Mufasa[/quote]
Of course itâs both. The public loot goes mostly to private companies who would probably have never pursued the line of research the client (the govt) wanted to pursue and in the depth the client wanted at the time it happened. NASA, DARPA and many others in the US are proof of this.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I think the problem here is trying to make the Public and Private contribution to scientific advancement an âeither/orâ proposition.
Itâs both.
Whatâs interesting is that I can almost guarantee you that the SCIENTIST involved in both sectors would agree; itâs the âpuristâ and âideologuesâ who disagree.
Mufasa[/quote]
Of course itâs both. The public loot goes mostly to private companies who would probably have never pursued the line of research the client (the govt) wanted to pursue and in the depth the client wanted at the time it happened. NASA, DARPA and many others in the US are proof of this.
[/quote]
I think we agree, Neuro!
Didnât you mention the Internet? Prime Example.
After Gore invented it (JUST kidding! Couldnât resist!)
The Government could only take an archaic system (by todayâs standards) that connected agencies, libraries, etc. only so far.
It took a âPrivate Sector/Entrepreneurialâ eye to take it to where it is today.
I think the same has to happen with the exploration of Space.
Mufasa
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
figures[/quote]Yep
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You could, but it wonât happen. At least American conservatives are open about their penny pinching.[/quote]
Changed that for you.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
figures[/quote]Yep
[/quote]
No corpus? Must be fake.
You guys ever seen/heard of this guy
http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]jehovasfitnesswrote:figures[/quote]Yep[/quote]No corpus? Must be fake.[/quote]Better get on the horn Christopher. The holy pontiff and vicar of Christ, B16, did not get the memo. It is your sacred duty to rescue this uncatechized simpleton from a career of future such God dishonoring error lest the one true apostolic church and bride of Christ be perceived as inconsistent in her application of tradition. I know you wouldnât want that. Try this. Useful Information or this may be even better benedictxvi@vatican.va
Those were my own brainstorming I guess I shoulda kept it to myself. That section of your post really got me started on a train of thought which felt at least a bit different than any I can remember having ever been on before.
It wasnât really a response to you - I took that paragraph outside of your context and put it into my own. Your post was pretty good, but to me that paragraph wasnât. Iâve got more thinking to do. Help me out?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Since you want to speculate about how things could be or have been, please tell me how the moon landings would have happened without direct accelerated federal spend. Who wouldâve got it done?[/quote]I would like to speculate on how things could be
I would like to speculate that any and all future NASA projects and programs could be funded with direct accelerated individual spending - rather than direct accelerated federal spending.
All the employees remain.
[quote]
And I agree, the free market isnât a bunch of corporations towering over you and sucking out every last penny. Itâs not anything. Itâs a hypothesis. An abstract. [/quote]Right, its just a word we can use to describe a bunch of people. At the end of the day so are âgovernmentsâ and a great many other terms we have no problem using all the time. My thing wasnât quite free market vs. govt - at least I didnât mean it to be. I guess you could say I saw it as a fusing of the two
What happens if you throw NASA off the govt dole - tomorrow? I bet you it hurts for three days - but it damn sure doesnât die. People go [i]What!!![/i] and then start donating themselves. And corporations. So this is what I was thinking - itâs my assumption I suppose - but I donât think it would die, I consider that it could in fact thrive. Thats because I think NASA is an extremely popular program.
If you could do it with NASA, then you could do it with anything. Sink or swim - and many would die. But hereâs what I thought was cool about it - it seems to me, at least in this stage of my thinking - to be a perfect form of a direct democracy. Like I said, no corrupt politicians⊠no counting votes. You and everybody you know votes with your dollars. Or eat ice cream - up to you - on every issue.
[quote]
But there is still a role for govt in even the freest system to spend public money in areas that are supported by a majority of the populace. [/quote]Under what Iâve said - if they are truly supported by a majority of the populace then they will thrive and not sink. Remember, a govt or a âfree marketâ - they are just people. I would like to speculate that this is a better and much more honest way of counting the votes.
Social contract. Of course. You would still need a constitutional republic overlayed above that âvote with your dollarsâ direct democracy. Otherwise you could just wind up with a âmob ruleâ type like they did Socrates. But I hear often that âthe system is brokenâ, âwe need something newâ, âwe need to come together, compromiseâ blah blah blah. Iâm not even so sure - what Iâm thinking is nothing so radical as communism. Neither is it remotely utopic imo, just way better
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I think the problem here is trying to make the Public and Private contribution to scientific advancement an âeither/orâ proposition.
Itâs both.
Whatâs interesting is that I can almost guarantee you that the SCIENTIST involved in both sectors would agree; itâs the âpuristâ and âideologuesâ who disagree.
Mufasa[/quote]
Of course itâs both. The public loot goes mostly to private companies who would probably have never pursued the line of research the client (the govt) wanted to pursue and in the depth the client wanted at the time it happened. NASA, DARPA and many others in the US are proof of this.
[/quote]
I think we agree, Neuro!
Didnât you mention the Internet? Prime Example.
After Gore invented it (JUST kidding! Couldnât resist!)
The Government could only take an archaic system (by todayâs standards) that connected agencies, libraries, etc. only so far.
It took a âPrivate Sector/Entrepreneurialâ eye to take it to where it is today.
I think the same has to happen with the exploration of Space.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Iâm totally with you on this one. For space exploration to go into private hands, the technology has to become more available and cheaper. I think that will take advances in technology and increases in productive power.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The norm for a Bishop is to wear a Pectoral Cross (this piece has the purpose of creating devotion, usually has a relic or relic of the True Cross). That is what is around his neck. So, it wouldnât have the corpus, being as it is a cross.
Devotional tradition says that such a cross around oneâs neck and against oneâs chest is to remind one of the empty cross that our Lord has given them to bear. That everyday they need to pick up that cross and give it up to God.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The norm for a Bishop is to wear a Pectoral Cross (this piece has the purpose of creating devotion, usually has a relic or relic of the True Cross). That is what is around his neck. So, it wouldnât have the corpus, being as it is a cross.
Devotional tradition says that such a cross around oneâs neck and against oneâs chest is to remind one of the empty cross that our Lord has given them to bear. That everyday they need to pick up that cross and give it up to God.[/quote]
This thread really did just devolve into a âReligion vs Scienceâ thread despite overwhelming support of most of the religious people in this thread for the mars rover mission⊠Ainât that something.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The norm for a Bishop is to wear a Pectoral Cross (this piece has the purpose of creating devotion, usually has a relic or relic of the True Cross). That is what is around his neck. So, it wouldnât have the corpus, being as it is a cross.
Devotional tradition says that such a cross around oneâs neck and against oneâs chest is to remind one of the empty cross that our Lord has given them to bear. That everyday they need to pick up that cross and give it up to God.[/quote]Oh =]
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The norm for a Bishop is to wear a Pectoral Cross (this piece has the purpose of creating devotion, usually has a relic or relic of the True Cross). That is what is around his neck. So, it wouldnât have the corpus, being as it is a cross.
Devotional tradition says that such a cross around oneâs neck and against oneâs chest is to remind one of the empty cross that our Lord has given them to bear. That everyday they need to pick up that cross and give it up to God.[/quote]
[/quote]
K, bro.