You're right. I'm sure the Founding Fathers wanted the US to become an intellectual backwater, ruled by know-nothings and zealots interested only in immediate profits and religious orthodoxy. Science, schmience!
(Interesting that your post was via the Internet, derived from US Government-sponsored technologies; powered and transmitted by government-regulated electrical and communications systems. Next time, try replying using only tech that was available in the 1700's, OK?)
US politics, marked by "exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy".
And it suggests the nation's adventures with irrationality did not end with George W. Bush.
What is a shame though is that the, very vocal, minority Tea Party is getting so much media coverage that the world view of the USA is being distorted. It almost makes a case for media control, except such a thing could never happen in the land of the free ... could it???
Many of the world's greatest practical scientific advances have come form the USA and many of those as a result of Government sponsored research. The others are the result of the intensely competitive environment that inevitably arises when you place millions of people in close proximity to each other.
[sigh...] Science is good. Many of the Founders LOVED science. As do I. They wouldn't have DREAMED of forcing their neighbors to subsidize their experiments, however. Force-based inefficient government is not the solution. And the Constitution doesn't authorize it, anyway. The rule of law says, "no." Or don't you care?
Opposing government involvement in things it's simply not authorized to interfere with is not synonymous with, well, pretty much anything you've attempted to smear it with. Those of us who desire technological advance can accomplish it -- can invest in it with the money we keep not funding government "solutions" -- via voluntary free markets, as the Founders would approve. Hell, NASA's already (or finally) going that way. If it's a good idea, investors will fund it. If they WON'T, who the hell is servant government to force them to? What "special knowledge" is imparted by mere election?
(Do you want the government to control the internet? Or the media?)
What a happy world you live in, where free markets always do the right thing.
Gosh, just look at what a fine job Wall Street did --- bringing the world to the brink of economic collapse.
I hate to break this to you, but it's the job of government to govern. To regulate. To enforce. Look up the word, if you don't believe me.
"Govern" does not mean "anything goes, as long as it turns a profit." It doesn't mean, "do nothing." It doesn't mean "let the markets decide."
I leave you now to your happy world where words can mean whatever you want them to mean, and the disaster of the neocon free marketeers never happened.
So in your happy world, GOVERNMENTS always do the right thing?
The government/industry kleptocracy partnership that we currently suffer under has privatized profits and socialized losses. One result, Wall Street, is described by crony capitalism and political pandering, not by free markets. These words have meanings. You can look them up.
It is the job of (this) government to adhere to the document that authorized it. If you want it to do more, there's a mandatory amendment process conveniently built right in.
Free markets don't always do the "right" thing. But thanks to competition, they predictably do the sustainably PROFITABLE thing. And the way to sustain a profit -- absent government interference, of course -- is to satisfy your customers. Pretty simple.
Scientific research isn't a Constitutionally-delegated federal function.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I'm sure the Founding Fathers wanted the US to become an intellectual backwater, ruled by know-nothings and zealots interested only in immediate profits and religious orthodoxy. Science, schmience!
ReplyDelete(Interesting that your post was via the Internet, derived from US Government-sponsored technologies; powered and transmitted by government-regulated electrical and communications systems. Next time, try replying using only tech that was available in the 1700's, OK?)
I really like these two comments:
ReplyDeleteUS politics, marked by "exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy".
And it suggests the nation's adventures with irrationality did not end with George W. Bush.
What is a shame though is that the, very vocal, minority Tea Party is getting so much media coverage that the world view of the USA is being distorted. It almost makes a case for media control, except such a thing could never happen in the land of the free ... could it???
Many of the world's greatest practical scientific advances have come form the USA and many of those as a result of Government sponsored research. The others are the result of the intensely competitive environment that inevitably arises when you place millions of people in close proximity to each other.
[sigh...] Science is good. Many of the Founders LOVED science. As do I. They wouldn't have DREAMED of forcing their neighbors to subsidize their experiments, however. Force-based inefficient government is not the solution. And the Constitution doesn't authorize it, anyway. The rule of law says, "no." Or don't you care?
ReplyDeleteOpposing government involvement in things it's simply not authorized to interfere with is not synonymous with, well, pretty much anything you've attempted to smear it with. Those of us who desire technological advance can accomplish it -- can invest in it with the money we keep not funding government "solutions" -- via voluntary free markets, as the Founders would approve. Hell, NASA's already (or finally) going that way. If it's a good idea, investors will fund it. If they WON'T, who the hell is servant government to force them to? What "special knowledge" is imparted by mere election?
(Do you want the government to control the internet? Or the media?)
What a happy world you live in, where free markets always do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteGosh, just look at what a fine job Wall Street did --- bringing the world to the brink of economic collapse.
I hate to break this to you, but it's the job of government to govern. To regulate. To enforce. Look up the word, if you don't believe me.
"Govern" does not mean "anything goes, as long as it turns a profit." It doesn't mean, "do nothing." It doesn't mean "let the markets decide."
I leave you now to your happy world where words can mean whatever you want them to mean, and the disaster of the neocon free marketeers never happened.
So in your happy world, GOVERNMENTS always do the right thing?
ReplyDeleteThe government/industry kleptocracy partnership that we currently suffer under has privatized profits and socialized losses. One result, Wall Street, is described by crony capitalism and political pandering, not by free markets. These words have meanings. You can look them up.
It is the job of (this) government to adhere to the document that authorized it. If you want it to do more, there's a mandatory amendment process conveniently built right in.
Free markets don't always do the "right" thing. But thanks to competition, they predictably do the sustainably PROFITABLE thing. And the way to sustain a profit -- absent government interference, of course -- is to satisfy your customers. Pretty simple.
ReplyDeletehttp://adventuresinthefreestate.com/2010/10/of-markets-and-mayhem.html
ReplyDelete