Government is a beautiful thing

[Rustic]

Only fucking moron thinks that collectivism is worth a shit...

You aren't smart enough to understand the concept.

Collectivism means there's no room for the individual and the freedoms that go along with it… Fact

So your dumbass mind thinks that a collective mindset gives no regard whatsoever to the freedom of individuals? No. I know you cons struggle with nuance but unless you educate yourselves on these matters you come across like an idiot.

OMG

Listen you miserable dingleberry RESEARCH THEN AND ONLY THEN REPOST


col·lec·tive
kəˈlektiv/
adjective
adjective: collective

1. 1.
   done by people acting as a group.
   "a collective protest"
   • belonging or relating to all the members of a group.
     "ministers who share collective responsibility"
     synonyms: common, shared, joint, combined, mutual, communal, pooled; More
     
     antonyms: individual

1. • taken as a whole; aggregate.
     "the collective power of the workforce"

Dude you're so stupid. When it comes to subscribing to either mindset, it means one has an EMPHASIS on it. A collective philosophy doesn't necessarily mean "oh ANY individual freedom must be scrubbed!". It's still about finding a balance between individual freedom and the greater good. You just decide what particular individual freedoms should not be infringed and what should be sacrificed. It's about EMPHASIZING. It's not all-or-nothing thinking you moron.

There is no room whatsoever for individual freedoms in the collective village… Fact

 

[Rustic]

Collectivism is right out of communist handbook on how to fuck over citizens… Fact

 

[Skull Pilot]

Government is at best a necessary evil and should be treated as such

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Well -- we let the world produce the EASY stuff (basketballs, shoes, toasters, TVs, dildos) and to SURVIVE as a nation now -- we must step up to being explorers, innovators, and inventors. Actually a matter of national survival at this point. And I don't mind general funding to encourage and promote those activities.

You are innovators and inventors. And the govt has always funded it.

Nothye havent.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Here's the thing about the RW's perspective on government: liberals don't say "more government, the better!" Obviously that's wrong when we look at Totalitarian regimes from history like Hitler or Stalin. Liberals, generally, want a government that serves the collective. They want a government that puts a capitalistic economy in check for the sake of the greater good.

Liberals want effective regulatory policies over society.

Now that idea is a thought-provoking one. One of course has to ask: where do you draw the line on government power? How do you balance individual freedom with law and order that protects society as a whole? It's not an easy answer.

However, all that being said, this country needs a strong government. It needs a strong federal government. Republicans' goals to weaken it are perverse.

When government works, it really works. It's a beautiful thing that can bring harmony to society if it is designed properly.

billy democrats have hurt society too.....if you were not such a lefty you would be able to see that...

I never said they didn't.

and you never say they do....your threads are all about how bad republicans are,while giving the impression that democrats are somehow not guilty of anything.......

 

[OKTexas]

So you don't really think the Constitution should determine the governments roll?

Oh I do.. I don't know what specifically you objected to -- but basic R&D can be justified certainly for military purposes. But also for promoting commerce. Playing markets with Solyndras and Teslas -- not so much. GENERIC science and technology funding is VITAL to keeping America in the Global game at this point.

The Space Program was a good example of that. It was really a vehicle for boosting America's total competence in science and engineering. And I wouldn't oppose that IF it's done in an equitable manner and money is not TARGETED to specific companies or specific politically charged agendas like "Climate Change".

That latter example of funding "Climate Change" research wouldn't really bother me greatly IF the funding didn't ASK for particular political policy conclusions to be delivered.

Yeah, when it comes to tech that's what we have Apple, Dell, Microsoft, HP and Intel ect for. I agree on specific defense related research, however if there's cross applicability to the civilian sector the government can license it. Unfortunately were are also funding crap studies to the tune of hundreds of millions a year on things like the drinking habits of Chinese hookers. Between that and the national endowment for the arts, the Kennedy Center and a butt load of others we're wasting tons on unconstitutional stuff.

It doesn't hurt the Constitution to fund general scientific exploration and research. NOT specifically targeted to the benefit of single people (Elon Musk -- the Federal pimp daddy extraordinaire) or single companies . Was the Lewis/Clark expedition Constitutional? Why?

Well -- we let the world produce the EASY stuff (basketballs, shoes, toasters, TVs, dildos) and to SURVIVE as a nation now -- we must step up to being explorers, innovators, and inventors. Actually a matter of national survival at this point. And I don't mind general funding to encourage and promote those activities.

Lewis and Clark was a mapping expedition, it was critical for defense. Also constitutionally the feds "promote the sciences and useful arts" by providing patents and copyrights, not through direct funding for R&D. I know it's convenient to ignore the Constitution, but as you've seen, once it's tolerated it never ends.

Critical for Defense??? It was a Real Estate tour. Acquisitions and "investments"...

And the now doomed Space Program? Was THAT simply Defense also? Ain't a great country in history that didn't invest in pumping up innovation and exploration..

Ya think that might be the reason the founders included Article 5? And yep, the space program started out as primarily military, it was all about guidance and ballistic missile tech. It wasn't until Kennedy that the focus really changed.

 

[OKTexas]

That has been the communist manifesto ever since its inception.....if only we get the right people in, a veritable utopia will surely ensue......................and it never does. What does happen is dictators, tyrants, state owned control of property, price fixings, shortages AND millions of deaths.

Exactly. When the govt exceeds it's bounds of expertise and ATTEMPTS to manage industries and market sectors. The NEXT thing that happens is that they WHINE that the ONLY solution is to "nationalize" it. And inevitably that amount of socialism leads to cronyism, corruption, and graft.

Govt needs to focus on it's basic priorities. Because it's FUCKING THOSE UP royally. Be it MidEast policy or insuring FAIR ELECTIONS, or keeping politics out of the Justice System. For things like technology, Govt should NEVER be in the process of picking market winners/losers individually. Like with Musk or Solyndra. They should fund STRICTLY R&D and naked science. And make that available to ALL bidders for contracts and grants EQUALLY...

So you don't really think the Constitution should determine the governments roll?

Oh I do.. I don't know what specifically you objected to -- but basic R&D can be justified certainly for military purposes. But also for promoting commerce. Playing markets with Solyndras and Teslas -- not so much. GENERIC science and technology funding is VITAL to keeping America in the Global game at this point.

The Space Program was a good example of that. It was really a vehicle for boosting America's total competence in science and engineering. And I wouldn't oppose that IF it's done in an equitable manner and money is not TARGETED to specific companies or specific politically charged agendas like "Climate Change".

That latter example of funding "Climate Change" research wouldn't really bother me greatly IF the funding didn't ASK for particular political policy conclusions to be delivered.

Yeah, when it comes to tech that's what we have Apple, Dell, Microsoft, HP and Intel ect for. I agree on specific defense related research, however if there's cross applicability to the civilian sector the government can license it. Unfortunately were are also funding crap studies to the tune of hundreds of millions a year on things like the drinking habits of Chinese hookers. Between that and the national endowment for the arts, the Kennedy Center and a butt load of others we're wasting tons on unconstitutional stuff.

The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money.

The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries. The space program is a glaring example of this. There is a place in science for government because they are able to seek answers regardless of possible profit margins and they are large enough to take the losses that requires.

We would still not have went to space without the government taking that first step. In the years to come, the market will produce profitable ventures there. That is the type of raw science that the government should be involved in - the type that pushed the very boundaries of the human race. Then the market can take that research and utilize it in the market.

The argument is not right or wrong, it's whether it is constitutional. As written, it's not except for military applications.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well -- we let the world produce the EASY stuff (basketballs, shoes, toasters, TVs, dildos) and to SURVIVE as a nation now -- we must step up to being explorers, innovators, and inventors. Actually a matter of national survival at this point. And I don't mind general funding to encourage and promote those activities.

You are innovators and inventors. And the govt has always funded it.

Govt is of lately STYMYING inventors and innovators. You see that in the DESERT of Start-Ups and IPOfferings in the stock market. We hit BOTTOM and never recovered. And the reason is -- the MEGA-GIANTS are the only ones with the corporate infrastructure mass to business under regulations and laws.. So if you DO have a great idea, the game is SELL IT out before you hit "corporate maturity". That's WHY we're on the verge of monopolies and horizontal megalith corporations taking over completely...

 

[P@triot]

One of course has to ask: where do you draw the line on government power?

The U.S. Constitution (nitwit). Next question?

 

[FA_Q2]

Exactly. When the govt exceeds it's bounds of expertise and ATTEMPTS to manage industries and market sectors. The NEXT thing that happens is that they WHINE that the ONLY solution is to "nationalize" it. And inevitably that amount of socialism leads to cronyism, corruption, and graft.

Govt needs to focus on it's basic priorities. Because it's FUCKING THOSE UP royally. Be it MidEast policy or insuring FAIR ELECTIONS, or keeping politics out of the Justice System. For things like technology, Govt should NEVER be in the process of picking market winners/losers individually. Like with Musk or Solyndra. They should fund STRICTLY R&D and naked science. And make that available to ALL bidders for contracts and grants EQUALLY...

So you don't really think the Constitution should determine the governments roll?

Oh I do.. I don't know what specifically you objected to -- but basic R&D can be justified certainly for military purposes. But also for promoting commerce. Playing markets with Solyndras and Teslas -- not so much. GENERIC science and technology funding is VITAL to keeping America in the Global game at this point.

The Space Program was a good example of that. It was really a vehicle for boosting America's total competence in science and engineering. And I wouldn't oppose that IF it's done in an equitable manner and money is not TARGETED to specific companies or specific politically charged agendas like "Climate Change".

That latter example of funding "Climate Change" research wouldn't really bother me greatly IF the funding didn't ASK for particular political policy conclusions to be delivered.

Yeah, when it comes to tech that's what we have Apple, Dell, Microsoft, HP and Intel ect for. I agree on specific defense related research, however if there's cross applicability to the civilian sector the government can license it. Unfortunately were are also funding crap studies to the tune of hundreds of millions a year on things like the drinking habits of Chinese hookers. Between that and the national endowment for the arts, the Kennedy Center and a butt load of others we're wasting tons on unconstitutional stuff.

The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money.

The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries. The space program is a glaring example of this. There is a place in science for government because they are able to seek answers regardless of possible profit margins and they are large enough to take the losses that requires.

We would still not have went to space without the government taking that first step. In the years to come, the market will produce profitable ventures there. That is the type of raw science that the government should be involved in - the type that pushed the very boundaries of the human race. Then the market can take that research and utilize it in the market.

The argument is not right or wrong, it's whether it is constitutional. As written, it's not except for military applications.

That may very well be the case.

I would have no problem whatsoever with supporting an amendment that brought such research as a primary responsibility for the government or your position that such is required.

 

[P@triot]

We see how fucking bad it is anytime a nation has no government like Somalia and Haiti...It doesn't work. It won't work.

First of all - Somalia is the result of Civil War you moron. Second - both of those nations are exponentially better than Adolf Hitler's Germany, Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, Benito Mussolini's Italy, or Fidel Castro's Cuba.

 

[P@triot]

We would still not have went to space without the government taking that first step.

Bullshit. Elon Musk and SpaceX have reached space. And they did for a billionth of the cost it took our U.S. government. Had the private sector been so inclined to reach space back in the 1960's - they would have done it quicker and cheaper than the U.S. government did. That's an indisputable fact.

 

[P@triot]

The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money. The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries.

Once again, bullshit. Anything which truly "advances the entire human race" becomes a priceless commodity in the private market because they people will pay for it. All of the R&D that you want to point to in the public sector was the result of military defense (such as space exploration - a direct response to the U.S.S.R. sending a rocket into space). Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

Furthermore, even if you were telling the truth (and you're absolutely not) - it doesn't matter. No where is the federal government authorized to reach beyond their 18 enumerated powers whenever they feel is will "advance the entire human race". If you progressives want something done by the federal government - then amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect that as their responsibility. If you can't get the votes to do so, then respect the fact that we the people have spoken and rejected your desire.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you don't really think the Constitution should determine the governments roll?

Oh I do.. I don't know what specifically you objected to -- but basic R&D can be justified certainly for military purposes. But also for promoting commerce. Playing markets with Solyndras and Teslas -- not so much. GENERIC science and technology funding is VITAL to keeping America in the Global game at this point.

The Space Program was a good example of that. It was really a vehicle for boosting America's total competence in science and engineering. And I wouldn't oppose that IF it's done in an equitable manner and money is not TARGETED to specific companies or specific politically charged agendas like "Climate Change".

That latter example of funding "Climate Change" research wouldn't really bother me greatly IF the funding didn't ASK for particular political policy conclusions to be delivered.

Yeah, when it comes to tech that's what we have Apple, Dell, Microsoft, HP and Intel ect for. I agree on specific defense related research, however if there's cross applicability to the civilian sector the government can license it. Unfortunately were are also funding crap studies to the tune of hundreds of millions a year on things like the drinking habits of Chinese hookers. Between that and the national endowment for the arts, the Kennedy Center and a butt load of others we're wasting tons on unconstitutional stuff.

The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money.

The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries. The space program is a glaring example of this. There is a place in science for government because they are able to seek answers regardless of possible profit margins and they are large enough to take the losses that requires.

We would still not have went to space without the government taking that first step. In the years to come, the market will produce profitable ventures there. That is the type of raw science that the government should be involved in - the type that pushed the very boundaries of the human race. Then the market can take that research and utilize it in the market.

The argument is not right or wrong, it's whether it is constitutional. As written, it's not except for military applications.

That may very well be the case.

I would have no problem whatsoever with supporting an amendment that brought such research as a primary responsibility for the government or your position that such is required.

I don't know guys. And as Libertarian I should be completely clear on this. BUT -- the Constitution doesn't a right for the govt to have a NatWeatherService either. And you could make the argument that it is LESS needed now than it was when it was initiated because the coverage is pretty good thru COMMERCIAL sources now. But at the time -- it was a critical gap that the markets didn't serve. In fact, I worked on NextRad radar displays that were NWS funded and saved COUNTLESS lives. It needs to better MANAGED and tracked for sure.

Same deal with NOAA and the bones that are LEFT of NASA. They did fill a necessary gap at the time they were created and should be CONSTANTLY re-examined for continuing in that role. PERHAPS commercial satellites would fill some gaps. Perhaps private space ventures would solve all the COMMON commercial needs.

MY test is whether the design, product or service EXISTS on the open market. If it does, like in "energy efficient appliances" or solar panels, they should NEVER be subsidized or funded. If it DOESN'T exist, than decisions should be made on the basis of promoting commerce or the general welfare and treated as PURE R&D and ideas funded strictly by MERIT on innovation and invention and ROI to the general economy.

 

[flacaltenn]

The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money. The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries.

Once again, bullshit. Anything which truly "advances the entire human race" becomes a priceless commodity in the private market because they people will pay for it. All of the R&D that you want to point to in the public sector was the result of military defense (such as space exploration - a direct response to the U.S.S.R. sending a rocket into space). Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

Furthermore, even if you were telling the truth (and you're absolutely not) - it doesn't matter. No where is the federal government authorized to reach beyond their 18 enumerated powers whenever they feel is will "advance the entire human race". If you progressives want something done by the federal government - then amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect that as their responsibility. If you can't get the votes to do so, then respect the fact that we the people have spoken and rejected your desire.

NWeatherService WAS priceless to the "general public" at the time it was created. But there was NO commercial value to the general free market. In fact using that example, the ONLY stakeholders I can think of would be the Insurance Companies. And the very idea of an Insurance company partnering with competitors to do high tech development sounds like a disaster to me. Govt has no particular expertise in it either. But as CONTRACTOR was probably the best place to get it done.

 

[P@triot]

The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money. The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries.

Once again, bullshit. Anything which truly "advances the entire human race" becomes a priceless commodity in the private market because they people will pay for it. All of the R&D that you want to point to in the public sector was the result of military defense (such as space exploration - a direct response to the U.S.S.R. sending a rocket into space). Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

Furthermore, even if you were telling the truth (and you're absolutely not) - it doesn't matter. No where is the federal government authorized to reach beyond their 18 enumerated powers whenever they feel is will "advance the entire human race". If you progressives want something done by the federal government - then amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect that as their responsibility. If you can't get the votes to do so, then respect the fact that we the people have spoken and rejected your desire.

NWeatherService WAS priceless to the "general public" at the time it was created. But there was NO commercial value to the general free market. In fact using that example, the ONLY stakeholders I can think of would be the Insurance Companies. And the very idea of an Insurance company partnering with competitors to do high tech development sounds like a disaster to me. Govt has no particular expertise in it either. But as CONTRACTOR was probably the best place to get it done.

Not really. I can look outside of my window to see what's happening. I really don't need a meteorologist to tell me.

And don't try to sell me on the fact that it saves lives. We had a National Weather Service during Hurricane Katrina. How did that work out?

 

[OKTexas]

Oh I do.. I don't know what specifically you objected to -- but basic R&D can be justified certainly for military purposes. But also for promoting commerce. Playing markets with Solyndras and Teslas -- not so much. GENERIC science and technology funding is VITAL to keeping America in the Global game at this point.

The Space Program was a good example of that. It was really a vehicle for boosting America's total competence in science and engineering. And I wouldn't oppose that IF it's done in an equitable manner and money is not TARGETED to specific companies or specific politically charged agendas like "Climate Change".

That latter example of funding "Climate Change" research wouldn't really bother me greatly IF the funding didn't ASK for particular political policy conclusions to be delivered.

Yeah, when it comes to tech that's what we have Apple, Dell, Microsoft, HP and Intel ect for. I agree on specific defense related research, however if there's cross applicability to the civilian sector the government can license it. Unfortunately were are also funding crap studies to the tune of hundreds of millions a year on things like the drinking habits of Chinese hookers. Between that and the national endowment for the arts, the Kennedy Center and a butt load of others we're wasting tons on unconstitutional stuff.

The private sector is good at targeted research - research that is needed to get a specific product to market to make money.

The market sucks for real research - the kind that does not get a product to market but instead advances the entire human race and redefines our boundaries. The space program is a glaring example of this. There is a place in science for government because they are able to seek answers regardless of possible profit margins and they are large enough to take the losses that requires.

We would still not have went to space without the government taking that first step. In the years to come, the market will produce profitable ventures there. That is the type of raw science that the government should be involved in - the type that pushed the very boundaries of the human race. Then the market can take that research and utilize it in the market.

The argument is not right or wrong, it's whether it is constitutional. As written, it's not except for military applications.

That may very well be the case.

I would have no problem whatsoever with supporting an amendment that brought such research as a primary responsibility for the government or your position that such is required.

I don't know guys. And as Libertarian I should be completely clear on this. BUT -- the Constitution doesn't a right for the govt to have a NatWeatherService either. And you could make the argument that it is LESS needed now than it was when it was initiated because the coverage is pretty good thru COMMERCIAL sources now. But at the time -- it was a critical gap that the markets didn't serve. In fact, I worked on NextRad radar displays that were NWS funded and saved COUNTLESS lives. It needs to better MANAGED and tracked for sure.

Same deal with NOAA and the bones that are LEFT of NASA. They did fill a necessary gap at the time they were created and should be CONSTANTLY re-examined for continuing in that role. PERHAPS commercial satellites would fill some gaps. Perhaps private space ventures would solve all the COMMON commercial needs.

MY test is whether the design, product or service EXISTS on the open market. If it does, like in "energy efficient appliances" or solar panels, they should NEVER be subsidized or funded. If it DOESN'T exist, than decisions should be made on the basis of promoting commerce or the general welfare and treated as PURE R&D and ideas funded strictly by MERIT on innovation and invention and ROI to the general economy.

This is the basis for my argument.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The NWS along with early NASA acrivity can be argued as being necessary for national defense, the NWS is used not only to predict weather events in the US but in other theaters of operation. Knowing weather forecast helps us protect our military assets at home and abroad. The civilian benefits are just a great side effect.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well -- we let the world produce the EASY stuff (basketballs, shoes, toasters, TVs, dildos) and to SURVIVE as a nation now -- we must step up to being explorers, innovators, and inventors. Actually a matter of national survival at this point. And I don't mind general funding to encourage and promote those activities.

You are innovators and inventors. And the govt has always funded it.

Nothye havent.

You've obviously never heard of this little agency called NASA...

 

[jillian]

Here's the thing about the RW's perspective on government: liberals don't say "more government, the better!" Obviously that's wrong when we look at Totalitarian regimes from history like Hitler or Stalin.

The Democratic Party would elect Stalin in a heartbeat if you could

you have that butt backward..... as the installation of a russian puppet as president proves.

people who hate government and have no respect for what it can do....and only use it for their own benefit.... shouldn't be allowed to run government.

but i do love how you whine about gubmint when it's your loons who want to interfere with people's most personal beliefs and choices.

but it's not like the right is rational.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here's the thing about the RW's perspective on government: liberals don't say "more government, the better!" Obviously that's wrong when we look at Totalitarian regimes from history like Hitler or Stalin.

The Democratic Party would elect Stalin in a heartbeat if you could

What a brilliant commen! So meaningful. Thanks so much!