🚀 go-pugleaf

ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca (Alan Scott) writes:

>In article <3pqcsu$7i2@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
>rex i beard <c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> wrote:
>>In article <D8txzH.CzA@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
>>Alan Scott <ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>>>It all comes down to this.  Some people feel that there is intrinsic worth
>>>in knowledge.  Perhaps it will not pay us back immediately in profits.
>>
>>And some people think there is intrinsic worth in lots of things.
>>What makes *your* life choices more valuable than someone elses?

>Some people see a need for non materialistic returns and therefore they
>urge the government to level the playing field for these other ventures.

For being such a "non-materialistic guy" you certainly want a whole bunch
of material to do it with. (15 billion for NASA)

>>I pay a premium for knowledge. Others pay a premium for entertainment,
>>food, housing, cars and all the other things free peaceful human beings
>>desire. And the "knowledge" you are seeking others to subsidize for
>>you is very close to "entertainment".

>Perhaps.  I feel reasonably confident however, that I am not the only one
>who is interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake.  Of course the majority

You're right. I am too. I'm also interested in action movies for their
"own sake" I don't think I should make you fund it though.

>of people who agree with me are probably in a scientific field as well by
>a logical consequence.  So here we are producing something of value while

Who says you're producing something of value? How do you know it has
value? Because *you* value it. Well *I* value something else. I *don't*
value NASA. So why do you make me pay for it?

>people of your materialistic stripe hold the reins.  The only way we can

I'm labeled "materialistic" because I want to use the money that *I*
earn in ways that *I* desire. And you're not materialistic because you
want to use the money that *I* earn in ways that *you* desire?

Oh, people like me *don't* "hold the reins". Big government contract
corporations (NASA supporters) hold more "reins" than anyone like me.

>make our choice known is through the democratic process since we are not
>endowed with vast sums of money.  I am not saying that our choice is right
>or better than the immediate profit scenario which you embrace.  I merely

Yes you are saying that. Because you endorse taking it from me to
pursue your goals. If you don't think your goals are more important than
mine, why fund your goals with my money?

>ask that you recognize the possibility that our value system has some
>intrinsic worth outside of the free market.

It certainly does. *You* have intrinsic worth. You are a human being.
And therefore I should not make you subsidize my value system.
I only ask the same from you.

>>*Your* choice for directing *my* money should not have greater (or even
>>equal) weight to *my* choice. Remember, you might be wrong.
>>
>>>One needs the long term commitment that a government can provide before
>>>the more obvious returns start flowing in.  Companies do not have the 
>>
>>Empirically we can show that governments aren't concerned with
>>the long term. Look at federal funding of science for one. How
>>about over grazing in the west? The national debt? Environmental
>>damage in the Eastern block? You're wrong.
>>

>I didn't say the government was concerned.  I merely stated that it is
>able to provide a long term capital commitment without seeing immediate 
>returns.  It is the people who must keep the government commited to a

Politicians *never* do anything without immediate returns. They have to
stand for election frequently. Sometimes they do things that have
value over the long run, but only when they get immediate returns from
voters.

>course.  That is why I am speaking up for this issue.  TO show that there
>is interest and people do feel the need for the space program.

And just how good has that long term commitment been? Space Station?
Super Collider? Space Shuttle? Are we still on the moon?

>>>necessary patience to put the money into such a venture at this point in
>>>time.  Rest assured that space will become commercially viable as the

>I feel that it is commercially viable.  It's certainly technologically
>viable.  Give me a billion dollars and I'll have space-ships mining the 
>asteroid belt.

Really? Go for it. Start producing business plans and looking for
venture capital. Private industy is very capable of raising a billion
dollars.

>>My whole thesis for this thread has been "Opportunity Costs". When you
>>choose to follow path A you necessarily can not follow path B.
>>
>>By government mandate you have decided to follow path "Space
>>Exploration". The free market (Which naturally gravitates to the paths

>The free market tends to favour the materialistic philosophy.  The 
>democratic process is the only way the middle class can speak up for

The "majority of voters" if given the chance would seriously cut back
NASA. The reason it hasn't been cut more is because *most* of that
majority is more concerned with something else while a very vocal minority
is *very* concerned with keeping it.

But this isn't a debate over what the majority wants.

>This is also the problem of the free market since it doesn't operate well
>with democracy.  It tends to concentrate wealth in only a few pockets.

It seems to survive better in democracies.
"Free market" and "democracy" are definitions.  The *definitions*
have nothing to do with one another. However, by definition a "democracy"
can do away with freedom hence sometimes democracies violate the freedom
in the marketplace.

>It would prefer `one dollar, one vote' rather than the present system.

Free markets don't have anything to do with voting and making political
decisions.

The "dollar vote" in the free market is in fact much better than the
analogous democratic vote. In the market place your "one dollar vote"
is never canceled out by my "one dollar vote". So we both get one dollar
of what we desire with our one "vote".

In politics your one actual vote can cancel out my one vote. NASA is
a great example of that. My vote goes against politicians for NASA
and yours goes for them. One of us loses. 

>>-rex-

>Al Scott--The Bard  Company of Dreams
-- 
Margaret (and sometimes rex)        rbeard@holli.com