I can really see how you calling me a liar while posting nothing of actual merit was actually 'cornering me.' If you can't be bothered to know what the words you're using mean don't get worked up when someone points out that rather obvious fact.
Maybe I add this bid: Not only do you know nothing about me or my ideology you know very little about what any of the words you keep repeating actually mean or entail.
That's part of my point, they use different classifications for different things. That reinforced the analogy, not weakens it.
You're going to have to do better than 'liar liar pants on fire.' Dressing it up with fancier words does nothing to improve its efficacy.
Well the first is demonstrably false unless you think there's no such thing as a voluntary donation. You could argue that voluntary donations are never going to amount to enough to make much headway with better success. Government funding has a place, I personally thing we'd be way better off funneling more federal dollars in the current system to scientific research, but it's not the only means of funding.
The second isn't formally definitive, of course it 'may' not but it also 'may' so it doesn't really say anything. It also ignores that many private actors act without expecting a profit, voluntary donations of time and money are not at all uncommon even if they aren't enough.
The second isn't formally definitive, of course it 'may' not but it also 'may' so it doesn't really say anything. It also ignores that many private actors act without expecting a profit, voluntary donations of time and money are not at all uncommon even if they aren't enough.
You misunderstood. You literally posted nothing but 'err no.' That's not an argument anyone can address because it's not an argument. I'm sure there's more to your opinion than 'err no' but you decided not to post it. I guess to be glib?
I'm not sure what you're trying to show with your link other than your own misguided belief that the US is now or at some point was 'free market.' It's not and it hasn't been. 'Business types' being able to 'do anything they fucking want' also isn't a 'free market.'
You don't know anything about me or my ideology.
I'm not sure what you're trying to show with your link other than your own misguided belief that the US is now or at some point was 'free market.' It's not and it hasn't been. 'Business types' being able to 'do anything they fucking want' also isn't a 'free market.'
You don't know anything about me or my ideology.
The thing is my post had absolutely nothing to do with 'Libertopianism' (whatever the fuck that is) and everything to do with the fact that you were just plain wrong. History doesn't prove that what happened couldn't have happened any other way a priori and it's silly to suggest that it does.
The problem is that practically any system 'works' in the way you're using the word. Almost any system is capable of sustaining itself for a significant period of time. It's a question of what creates a better result and, in my opinion, the less mixing of the two the better. Partial public ownership of specific markets instead of full public or full private ownership leads to inefficiencies that limit long term potential for the same reason that using several systems of organization in a library leads to confusion because different parts of the market are moved for entirely different reasons.
Economic systems are very much systems of classification, they each employ their own method of determining if a thing, any thing, is to be done. The classify actions into hierarchies of more or less desirable. Capitalism leads to certain actions being given preferential treatment, socialism to others. When they are both employed at once they don't play all that nice together as each force attempts to counteract the other. It creates friction where the two systems fight one another instead of actually doing anything. Which isn't to say a mix can't 'work' e.g. sustain itself for a significant length of time as much as it is to say that minimizing such frictions would be beneficial.
Economic systems are very much systems of classification, they each employ their own method of determining if a thing, any thing, is to be done. The classify actions into hierarchies of more or less desirable. Capitalism leads to certain actions being given preferential treatment, socialism to others. When they are both employed at once they don't play all that nice together as each force attempts to counteract the other. It creates friction where the two systems fight one another instead of actually doing anything. Which isn't to say a mix can't 'work' e.g. sustain itself for a significant length of time as much as it is to say that minimizing such frictions would be beneficial.
I'd respond to your argument if you had one.
You're normally a pretty level-headed guy but question the validity of one of your fundamental assumptions on how the world works and you tend to fly off the handle. Case in point this:
"But feel free to believe whatever Libertopian fantasy you want."
does you a disservice. You're better than that. I know it, I've seen better. I follow your posts to read better.
"But feel free to believe whatever Libertopian fantasy you want."
does you a disservice. You're better than that. I know it, I've seen better. I follow your posts to read better.
An entire article of hasty generalization. Specific cases, especially when it's just one specific case, do not a general rule make. I mean there are very valid reasons to say that public funding for scientific research is important but 'Google is pulling out of green energy' is not even remotely close to being one of them. Let's also not forget that tax money isn't the only source of public funds.
That's the two-party system in a nut-shell: one party buys votes directly, the other buys intermediaries to buy votes for them.
You're affirming the consequent, that history demonstrates much of 20th Century technology was originally based on government funded research in no way what-so-ever proves that that is the only way it could have happened.
The nature of economics systems is such that you really can't 'keep your eggs in more than one basket' as far as systems go and expect to do ok. It's kind of like organizing a library, are we placing all our eggs in one basket by using the dewy decimal system? Should we diversify and use several systems? At once? In the same library? It just doesn't work that way.
Also of note is the idiotic formal argument that is 'If B doesn't work then A must not work either!'
I would have to agree though that there is clearly a public interest in scientific research into areas that are unlikely to or never will return a profit on the initial investment directly.
Also of note is the idiotic formal argument that is 'If B doesn't work then A must not work either!'
I would have to agree though that there is clearly a public interest in scientific research into areas that are unlikely to or never will return a profit on the initial investment directly.
Contrary to popular belief, the free market isn't what keeps boner pill poppers in the first world rich or what keeps malarial victims in the third world poor... I mean your point isn't wholly without merit but those are some science awful examples.
Facebook took years and years to get to where it is now though. Plus the existence of Facebook doesn't prove what you're saying it proves. It obviously proves that one service could do that slowly over time with little high volume competition, like Facebook did, but it obviously does not prove that another service could enter a space with an existing service that size and start beating them on volume of user base quickly, which is what you're actually saying competitors should do.
"it's just business."
You're coddling Facebook with equivocation here. They're doing alright for themselves in spite of their poor business practices. I don't think you need to be an apologist for them. They'll get along fine without you. Similarly silly is your idea that Facebook can only be competed with by attracting a similar user base instantaneously. That's just not feasible for any service no matter how compelling or easy to use it is.
You're coddling Facebook with equivocation here. They're doing alright for themselves in spite of their poor business practices. I don't think you need to be an apologist for them. They'll get along fine without you. Similarly silly is your idea that Facebook can only be competed with by attracting a similar user base instantaneously. That's just not feasible for any service no matter how compelling or easy to use it is.
Yeah, you can't just 'sidestep' Facebook's TOS to export friends into a new service. That's a potential crime given the way the CFAA is being interpreted.
Honestly if you're position is that competing services, like Google+ just off the top of my head, are any harder to use technically than Facebook you're just speaking out of ignorance or bias anyway.
Honestly if you're position is that competing services, like Google+ just off the top of my head, are any harder to use technically than Facebook you're just speaking out of ignorance or bias anyway.
The symmetry is so elegant.
I don't want to mock you for post anecdotal evidence if you're trying to be funny. What a bind is this bind I'm in.
