Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 4. (Read 24009 times)

Please explain how this relates to MIT's motor development which was funded by DARPA.

Here's an example for your edification:   Samuel Pierpoint Langley (government funding) vs. the Wright brothers (private funding).

Source: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi32.htm

Another article explains why private funding worked *better* than government funding:
Source: http://www.economicthinking.org/technology/noballoonattached.html

Also the identity of Grover.

Just like it would be more illuminating if Rassah could actually demonstrate understanding of the old growth forest/spotted owl scenario in the other thread, where you don't seem to think a demonstration of understanding is necessary. Very hypocritical.

Oh, no, I know. But as I said, it would be more illuminating to you if you were to puzzle it out yourself. Hint: the process isn't evolution, it's society. What might a government supporter view as necessary, but which, in the end, destroys the goal of liberty?

It would be more illuminating if you were to discover the answer yourself, than to have it handed to you on a platter. So try again. What might Fluorine represent?

No. Try again on Fluorine.

I thought the point of the story was that governments get in the way of research. It sounded very preachy to me.

And yes, there are other ways to fund research. That's good. We shouldn't limit ourselves to one single method.

It hasn't been shown to me.  And it hasn't been shown to you, either.  You just take it on faith, really.  In our modern world, it's literally impossible for us to actually understand all of the science, so we have to take some things on faith.  That was exactly the point of the story.

And who said anything about corporations?  There are other ways to fund research than taxes or potential profits.

Except it's so wrong. It has been shown that the government will fund things that corporations won't. Corporations typically will only engage in R & D that has a payoff within a certain amount of time, typically much less than government funded research might yield. This is known, and examples abound.

And here we have new motors, the result of government funded research. Are you saying the motors don't now exist?

...it's not exactly about government research, but metaphor, simile, and analogy have a poor track record on this forum.

Good article, though. Thanks, MS.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/grover-and-annie

With regard to government research.

New motor developed at MIT from a government grant. I love university research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AQf0qsRTsoA

He has plenty of evidence things could be better. He ignores it. You, at least, acknowledge the evidence, but would prefer proof. I understand. Fear is a powerful motivator. Especially fear of the unknown. Your imagination creates horrors much worse than reality ever could.

For instance: "Lawyers will abound...." I wonder how, when arbitration is party A, party B, and the arbitrator. Perhaps he thinks they will focus on contract law? A few, maybe. There may also be a few who focus on running class-action arbitrations for groups of people harmed by a company. But I just don't see that much of a market for lawyers in such a simple legal system. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a dozen bills for services I signed up for, than a single tax for something I didn't, and don't even use.

The theory is sound. All we need is a laboratory to test it in. It's looking like that laboratory will be New Hampshire.

Probably so.  We assume anyway.  We have no more evidence that ancap can't work than they have that it can.  What you argue for is the status quo; because you have no evidence that things could be better, you'd rather stick with the devil that you know.  I can understand that position, actually; because I'm of the same vein.  I'm as vested in this broken system as much as anyone, and would have much to lose if the US government were to collapse within the next decade.  And that is something that I need to change rather quickly because it will collapse, in some catastrophic manner or another.  I'm wise enough to have long understood that Social Security is a generational scam, and old enough to hope that I might make it so that I might be able to get some of my money back.  But now there are talks to avoid (not going to happen) this "fiscal cliff" that involve raising the standard eligibility age to 67.  Even if that doesn't happen now, it has to happen before I turn 65 if there is going to be any chance at all at there still being a meaningful amount of spending power in that monthly check.  If these government social services are not reformed soon, the Millinials will take over the electorate (probably before the next presidential election, maybe before the mid-terms, but soon) from the Boomers, and they are as likely to destroy those programs as reform them.  Many of the ancap people that you are arguing with are those very Millinials, who have little, if any, vested interests of their own into the status quo.

And yes, I am fully aware that SS is screwing the younger generations, but I'm also aware that I got screwed too.  Two wrongs dom't make a right, and I'd not cry in my soup if the SS system were to implode efore I made it, but I am not shy about taking the spoils that I can get if the system is still there whtn I arrive.

NAP isn't a law. It's a guiding principle to draw inspiration from while designing an AnCap society. It actually has zero effect with regard to what happens in a NAP inspired AnCap society though. In the end, the people within an AnCap society will still murder, rape, rob, deceive, and fight others over lovers, property, race, and ideas. In arbitration, someone will lose, perhaps unjustly. People will be inundated with contracts, subscriptions, tolls, fees, and bills. Lawyers will abound. Lawsuits will be the order of the day. Money will reign supreme.

There are many examples of social movements that had no precedent.  The end of slavery was one such movement.  No one could say who would pick the cotton, but the cotton still gets picked.  We don't need an example of such an existing society (although we actually do have a couple of examples that were pretty close) in order to point out the flaws in the current system.  I'm not an ancap either, in part because I am concerned about it's weaknesses & stability, but using the fact that no such societies exist is not an argument that they cannot.

I'd like you to explain how the non aggression principle could lead to a monopoly on force, because I can't see it.

Really, no matter how you look at it, the NAP is expressed as a social more in every major religion on Earth.  In judeo-christian history, it's the golden rule.  In the book Whatever Happened to Justice? Rich Maybury did a wonderful job showing that it's not possible to find a moral code that does not have a similar principle expressed for members of the tribe, it's in the exceptions that these moral codes differ.  The NAP has no exceptions, not for those who would portend to serve God, nor those who serve government.

True, the apparatus of state can be used for good... but it's mere existence requires the use of some evil. It's like the One Ring: no matter your intentions, it is a thing of evil, and you'll most likely end up doing more harm than good. Government has a regional monopoly on the industries of defense and justice. Monopolies are never beneficial to those they serve. Remove the monopoly. It's not rocket science.