PDA

View Full Version : How exactly could we have space exploration/moon landings without government?




socialize_me
11-15-2008, 08:43 PM
I'm anxious in being enlightened for this topic. I understand some quasi-space travel is going on privately, costing millions for individuals to take part in it, but how exactly would space travel work under privatization?? I mean, it's been almost 40 years since the government subsidized human landing on the moon...it's 2008 and we're just starting to get billionaires to fly a couple miles outside of our atmosphere. Who knows how long it will take for the private sector to adopt space travel to be as popular as going to Europe or Australia for vacation, but it seems as if it's very, very far off. Wasn't NASA a good thing??

ScotTX
11-15-2008, 08:46 PM
Why do we need to travel into space? Every time I see a space shuttle launch (or explode), I think about how much of my money is going up in smoke... Scrap NASA.

Danke
11-15-2008, 08:49 PM
Wasn't NASA a good thing??

Who paid for it? Was it voluntary? Or did they raise money for NASA by the threat of force and financial ruin if one did not contribute toward it?

Paulite
11-15-2008, 08:49 PM
how about we finish exploring space (inner) and then think about exploring space(outer)

socialize_me
11-15-2008, 08:53 PM
Why do we need to travel into space? Every time I see a space shuttle launch (or explode), I think about how much of my money is going up in smoke... Scrap NASA.

Are you kidding?? You realize how much innovation has come out of space travel?

Why do you need the Internet? That was formulated by government. Every time I see a bad website or blog, I think about how much of my grandparent's money went up in smoke.

mudhoney
11-15-2008, 08:58 PM
I don't see why technology to get into space would be hindered if it were a completely private market. I don't know how it is done now, but any industry that relies on satellite communication would be investing in that technology. As for things like landing people on the moon, well, if there is something useful to come from it for some sort of consumer it would happen, otherwise it's just a waste of money if no market could exist for it. I hope that makes sense.

Kludge
11-15-2008, 08:59 PM
Are you kidding?? You realize how much innovation has come out of space travel?

Why do you need the Internet? That was formulated by government. Every time I see a bad website or blog, I think about how much of my grandparent's money went up in smoke.

Laws should never be based upon assumptions. You cannot assume innovation will result from taxing people to pay for a ridiculous and completely unnecessary program.


A lot of civilian technology (such as the internet) originates solely or partially from military innovation. Surely you aren't suggesting we should increase military funding because it may lead to innovations usable by civilians. Even in the most ideal state of your implications, it's government-controlled/subsidized science.

roho76
11-15-2008, 09:00 PM
Are you kidding?? You realize how much innovation has come out of space travel?

Why do you need the Internet? That was formulated by government. Every time I see a bad website or blog, I think about how much of my grandparent's money went up in smoke.

Al Gore is responsible for the Drudge Report? WOW!!! This is deep.

JohnJay
11-15-2008, 09:03 PM
You realize how much innovation has come out of space travel?




Not even counting the indirect benefits . . .
NASA is pennies compared to the amounts budgeted for the invasions of foreign countries like Iraq

Cutting out NASA was probably - or definitely - the weakest part of Ron Paul's policy suggestions during the 2008 campaign.

Danke
11-15-2008, 09:08 PM
Not even counting the indirect benefits . . .
NASA is pennies compared to the amounts budgeted for the invasions of foreign countries like Iraq

Cutting out NASA was probably - or definitely - the weakest part of Ron Paul's policy suggestions during the 2008 campaign.

Yeah, what would I do without Tang, space blankets and freeze dried food?!?!

RCA
11-15-2008, 09:11 PM
The same way we fly, which is to say through choice not force.

socialize_me
11-15-2008, 09:15 PM
Laws should never be based upon assumptions. You cannot assume innovation will result from taxing people to pay for a ridiculous and completely unnecessary program.


A lot of civilian technology (such as the internet) originates solely or partially from military innovation. Surely you aren't suggesting we should increase military funding because it may lead to innovations usable by civilians. Even in the most ideal state of your implications, it's government-controlled/subsidized science.

All laws, even the Constitution, were based on assumptions. The Bill of Rights was based on the assumption the Federal Government would be like every other central government in history. Counterfeit laws were passed based on the assumption counterfeiters would exist. Murder laws exist on the assumption murders would occur. What the fuck are you talking about?

So based on your logic, we shouldn't have a military budget because we cannot assume we need to have a military or fund it for its innovations.

dannno
11-15-2008, 09:17 PM
Why would a private company want to pretend to go to the moon :confused:






























;)

Danke
11-15-2008, 09:18 PM
What the fuck are you talking about?

Klugde, he is asking you to dumb it down for him. Can you oblige?

tremendoustie
11-15-2008, 09:19 PM
In a free market, people produce what others need and want. If enough people needed or wanted to go to space, it would happen, and it would happen in the most efficient way to get the people exactly what they wanted. People need to communicate, so tools are created all the time for that purpose privately, and the internet would have been as well.

Smart people work on government projects sometimes, and they create useful things. This does not mean these smart people would not otherwise be working on other projects, and still create useful things. Someone would have created the internet if it were not for the military use, quite possibly sooner than it was created, because all of those brains and resources would not have been tied up by the government.

Charity is very important as well, by which we can help those who need it, and fund worthy research projects for the benefit of society.

In the end, there are three types of transactions:
1. The willing exchange of resources or time for the mutual benefit of both parties.
2. The willing gift of resources of time for the benefit of one party or of society.
3. The forceful taking of resources or time by the threat of violence and harm.

The first two of these transactions are acceptable, the last is not. Even in those rare cases when the third transaction can be said to have led to something good, it does not make that transaction acceptable. It is wrong to steal, and it is wrong to enslave. The fact that the slave's back may have been strengthened by the slavery, or the stolen money was partially used for something good, does not make that third kind of transaction any less evil.

RCA
11-15-2008, 09:20 PM
All laws, even the Constitution, were based on assumptions. The Bill of Rights was based on the assumption the Federal Government would be like every other central government in history. Counterfeit laws were passed based on the assumption counterfeiters would exist. Murder laws exist on the assumption murders would occur. What the fuck are you talking about?

So based on your logic, we shouldn't have a military budget because we cannot assume we need to have a military or fund it for its innovations.

I think what he meant was taxation of any kind should not be enforced based upon possible future scenarios.

In my opinion, taxation should not be enforced at all for any reason.

Danke
11-15-2008, 09:20 PM
So based on your logic, we shouldn't have a military budget because we cannot assume we need to have a military or fund it for its innovations.

Are you saying if we didn't go to the moon, the Martians would have seen us as weak and attacked us?

socialize_me
11-15-2008, 09:23 PM
Are you saying if we didn't go to the moon, the Martians would have seen us as weak and attacked us?

Nope, do I need to dumb it down for you?

Danke
11-15-2008, 09:25 PM
Nope, do I need to dumb it down for you?

Please.


I think Martians are friendly, by the way.

socialize_me
11-15-2008, 09:29 PM
Please.


I think Martians are friendly, by the way.

Make a pilgrimage to Egypt or Central America. They built the pyramids, you'd be in good company.

Kludge
11-15-2008, 09:29 PM
All laws, even the Constitution, were based on assumptions. The Bill of Rights was based on the assumption the Federal Government would be like every other central government in history. Counterfeit laws were passed based on the assumption counterfeiters would exist. Murder laws exist on the assumption murders would occur. What the fuck are you talking about?

Counterfeit laws are not based on assumptions. They punish when (not before!) the law is broken. "Apples and oranges" anyways on "removal of rights" laws vs. tax mandates.

With state-sanctioned science under the guise of NASA or military necessity, it is based on assumptions because it assumes that the program will provide innovation useful to taxpayers. This is one of my biggest gripes with coercive taxation. You pay in to NASA, Social Security, and Medicare, but that doesn't mean you will receive the assumed benefits. Thus, I believe that it should be done through charity, if at all. Because there aren't necessarily benefits, there is no justification to steal the money of others. (This is where it becomes very difficult for me to argue myself out of anarchism/voluntaryism, BTW.)

To take the argument in an admittedly arbitrary direction, the fifth amendment of the Constitution asserts that " ... private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation". When benefits are assumed but taxes are taken absolutely, there is not always "just compensation". Thus, having the government pay to possibly discover technology beneficial to taxpayers is inherently unconstitutional because just compensation isn't necessarily there. Even if there IS a scientific breakthrough, it doesn't necessarily help people. Hell -- it's probably a new form of weapon to kill us (if inclined) so long as the military's doing the research.


IMO, the most "ethical" evil the government could do in terms of "Federal Science" is to have people pay directly to a department which has scientists working to discover technologies beneficial to all taxpayers (or as many as possible).

JohnJay
11-15-2008, 09:29 PM
Yeah, what would I do without Tang, space blankets and freeze dried food?!?!

Or solar panels ?

tremendoustie
11-15-2008, 09:30 PM
Nope, do I need to dumb it down for you?

Here, let me make it quite simple for YOU. Please feel free to fund the next moon mission if you feel it is worth it. Please feel free to donate to any other government programs you find worthwhile.

Please do not threaten to put me in a cage or get your stooges to commit violence on me if I choose not to give my money towards these projects.

Also please do not fool yourself into thinking that because you have government men commit this violence for you, you are not morally responsible for the violence and theft they commit, that you support.

You do not need to sit here and convince me that these projects are worthwhile while your men are taking my money by force. You need to stop your stooges from stealing my money, then we'll talk. Perhaps then I will support your programs voluntarily, perhaps not. But when I am being mugged, I am not convinced if the mugger tells me I should be quite happy with the arrangement, because my money will be used well.

Danke
11-15-2008, 09:37 PM
Or solar panels ?

Oh yeah, NASA solar panel designs have solved our energy needs, silly me.

Andrew-Austin
11-15-2008, 09:46 PM
http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/2121/dippindotspo0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

All those gunpoint donations were worth it, I have benefited from space exploration.


--BTW, does anyone know if the Large Hadron Collider is privately funded or not?

socialize_me
11-15-2008, 10:03 PM
Here, let me make it quite simple for YOU. Please feel free to fund the next moon mission if you feel it is worth it. Please feel free to donate to any other government programs you find worthwhile.

Please do not threaten to put me in a cage or get your stooges to commit violence on me if I choose not to give my money towards these projects.

Also please do not fool yourself into thinking that because you have government men commit this violence for you, you are not morally responsible for the violence and theft they commit, that you support.

You do not need to sit here and convince me that these projects are worthwhile while your men are taking my money by force. You need to stop your stooges from stealing my money, then we'll talk. Perhaps then I will support your programs voluntarily, perhaps not. But when I am being mugged, I am not convinced if the mugger tells me I should be quite happy with the arrangement, because my money will be used well.

The thing is, I can't donate money to the government because it's taking enough from me already. I think you're all assuming I'm a statist and I support extravagant military budgets---ironic since you're the ones saying we cannot assume anything. Remember I'm a member of Ron Paul Forums and am not trolling, so I'd hope that at least would speak for something. I am for limited government, and was only curious as to how the private industry would or even could perform such things as space travel without precedent technology provided by the government. I think if we didn't have space travel via government, the private sector would never have developed similar means to do a very limited exploration today. In fact, I would doubt any of us in our lifetime would see privatized space travel--which is the distant future (you think humans will be landlocked on this planet forever?) --if we had no government mandating NASA.

I would gladly donate money if we didn't have an income tax for space travel. The problem is now the level of space travel seems negligible so I probably wouldn't pour my money into the project unless we were going to Mars or doing something more productive than casual explorations of space. Can I expect you to fund the project? No I cannot, so go ahead and move to Liechtenstein where you'll have a utopian tax haven.

I have no problem with taxation as neither did the Founders. Sorry, but I'll support Jeffersonian policies before I'll adhere to Rothbardian theories of anarchism. No Founders that I knew of supported anarchy. Wasn't it Thomas Paine, perhaps one of the more radical of the revolutionaries, who said Government was a "necessary evil"?? So I guess if you believe Rothbard is brighter than Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Paine, then I'm sorry I wasted my time replying. It's because we live in a world where government must exist (Move to Somalia if anarchism is the way--last week over 1,000 people watched a 13 year old teenager get stoned to death because she was raped and that was considered adultery--there's your utopia of anarchism) that we must pay taxes.

If government is not to exist, as I mentioned earlier, then fly to Somalia--oh wait you can't because the warlords there, which are nothing more than private individuals existing in an anarchy state, have threatened to shoot down any and all aircraft flying into the airports of Somalia. So you go find a way to get there, live there for a day if you could even avoid being shot at, and tell me how your opinion of Government changes.

If government is to exist, then it is the fate of us all that we pay some sort of taxes to fund it even if we disagree with a certain policy that others advocate. That is why you elect representatives that believe in your beliefs. Even Ron Paul mentioned this point when debating Huckabee.

I think many of you are lost. This is Ron Paul Forums. Perhaps you didn't take notice that he was running to re-instate the Constitution as being a document to be respected and followed. Many of you are advocating no taxation as it would support policies you don't. How is government to exist on a national level to provide for the provisions of the Constitution if we cannot tax?? Must you agree with everything for it to be a valid tax?? Funny and ironic...this is called "Groupthink" if I remember correctly. We only have policies everyone agrees with--good luck finding a country or government where that could happen. So you're advocating anarchy, which is just as retarded as advocating universal health care.

Again, move away from the theoretical models of Rothbard and Rockwell, and move to Somalia for a day. Tell me the fruits of anarchy. Tell me the evils of Government.

Kludge
11-15-2008, 10:08 PM
I think many of you are lost.

Thinking for ourselves instead of believing in something merely because someone we like does as well and then hiding behind the intellectual weight of that person is not being lost, it is being conscious.

Andrew-Austin
11-15-2008, 10:21 PM
I have no problem with taxation as neither did the Founders. Sorry, but I'll support Jeffersonian policies before I'll adhere to Rothbardian theories of anarchism. No Founders that I knew of supported anarchy. Wasn't it Thomas Paine, perhaps one of the more radical of the revolutionaries, who said Government was a "necessary evil"?? So I guess if you believe Rothbard is brighter than Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Paine, then I'm sorry I wasted my time replying.


lol I'm just going to selectively reply to this appeal to authority.

Yeah, I personally don't think its that far out at all to say Rothbard and Rockwell are more intelligent than most of the founding fathers you listed. Granted the more intelligent man does not necessarily have to be the most correct man... And the two do have far more lessons in history to learn from available to them than the founding fathers did.



I think many of you are lost. This is Ron Paul Forums. Perhaps you didn't take notice that he was running to re-instate the Constitution as being a document to be respected and followed.

We're united behind Ron Paul's message in that we all agree that government should be radically reduced in size and scope...

gray527
11-15-2008, 10:29 PM
It's cool that we can discuss this here. I've gone through many of my core principals and reevaluated them while reading this thread. It would be nice if we could return politics to a forum where open discussion and evaluating basic principles happened.

t0rnado
11-15-2008, 10:31 PM
Airplanes were not created by the federal government. They were created by individuals. Cars were not created by the federal government either.

If space travel were necessary or helpful in anyway, individuals would work on it. Remember, NASA is a group of scientists not a group of government hailing morons. If putting a man on the moon could possibly have benefits, then investors would pour money into it. That's the way the free market works.

As for Somalia, you are an idiot. Somalia is an Islamic theocracy run by idiots for idiots. Our founders weren't retards who thought blowing themselves up would result in 79 virgins. Somalia is a shithole because of its pathetic people.

The Soviet Union had a great space program. It some ways it was much better than the US's space program! Go to Russia and try to start up the Soviet Union again if you want an awesome space program!

powerofreason
11-15-2008, 10:53 PM
It will happen when it needs to happen. Period.

Well, unless government gets involved.

powerofreason
11-15-2008, 10:55 PM
And even if it didn't happen, thats no reason to force people at gunpoint to fund space exploration. How fucked up is that?

Kludge
11-15-2008, 10:56 PM
It will happen when it needs to happen. Period.

Well, unless government gets involved.

But what if the sun goes out and people didn't think it was important enough to fund space exploration?!

See, our enlightened representatives are far-sighted enough to prepare for this! People - ... well, people are stupid. Just look at November 4th.

I can only hope we elect Reptilians in 2010.

socialize_me
11-15-2008, 10:57 PM
lol I'm just going to selectively reply to this appeal to authority.

Yeah, I personally don't think its that far out at all to say Rothbard and Rockwell are more intelligent than most of the founding fathers you listed. Granted the more intelligent man does not necessarily have to be the most correct man... And the two do have far more lessons in history to learn from available to them than the founding fathers did.



We're united behind Ron Paul's message in that we all agree that government should be radically reduced in size and scope...

Nahh...are you kidding me?? Rockwell and Rothbard were and are economists with some philosophy. The Founders?? Look at what most of their abilities were--they were Renaissance men with expertise in many fields, and most of them were all individually like that. Many were fluent in multiple languages as well, not that being unilingual is a bad thing.

Rockwell and Rothbard are/were pretty well informed on economic and monetary history. The Founders? Well, to give an example, James Madison locked himself for weeks in his house prior to the Constitutional Convention to study Roman and Greek Law. Most of the Founders, at least the well known ones that I have referred to, knew more about history and law than anyone today. It's quite astonishing how people like Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were all educated on economic understanding with very little to go off of considering the first book on economics was written in 1776 by Adam Smith, they all knew law just as good as, perhaps even better, than our Supreme Court justices, and their understanding of history was better than anything I've read by Rockwell or Rothbard. In fact after reading Rothbard's criticism of the K-wave supercycle theory, I question exactly his historical reasoning.

To compare Rockwell or Rothbard with Jefferson or Adams, or to even suggest they're more intelligent, is pretty radical and offensive--not to mention very mind boggling. It's clear you've read very little of Adams and Jefferson, but a lot of Rockwell and Rothbard. Considering Jefferson was a botanist, philosopher, historian, architect, statesman, archaeologist, paleontologist, author, and inventor, and that Adams was many of those in addition to being a lawyer, I really question YOUR reasoning as to say Rothbard and Rockwell are brighter men than Jefferson and Adams were. Unbelievable! Can you name the professions of Rothbard and Rockwell? Historians, philosophers, and economists...hardly anything comparable to the Founders. But of course, you read very little into them and more into the dogmatic views of the anarchists. Move to Somalia and test their theories out if they're so bright. Then again, anarchists never cease to amaze me how they make up more and more excuses than anything. I suppose Somalia would be excused as a bad model by Rothbard and Rockwell...just as frustrating debating folks like you as it is debating Communists saying communism has never been tried because it actually failed several times historically.

Just excuse piled on top of excuse. I look at the real world, not theory, and I find the theorists do nothing less than make excuses to keep their utopian vision preserved. The Founders looked at history and modeled America after many examples of it. Rothbard and Rockwell, when they deviate from their historical references and advocate universal voluntarism and no government, are suggesting mere theory. If you want your life to be an experiment testing out anarchy, then it will be a very short and miserable one.

mrchubbs
11-15-2008, 11:02 PM
Imagine how much further we could have been in the exploration of space and technology if NASA never existed?

There is an argument that could be made that innovation would have been further along had all space exploration been left to the unregulated desires of dreamers with money and purpose.

I'm not sure what could have been. Not sure if it would have been better or worse, but the minute that NASA was created it completely changed the playing field for private space exploration and invention.


Enjoy.

Kludge
11-15-2008, 11:05 PM
There is an argument that could be made that innovation would have been further along had all space exploration been left to the unregulated desires of dreamers with money and purpose.


"Greed is Good" with John Stossel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0VHiONkot8

LibertyEagle
11-15-2008, 11:31 PM
Which enumerated power in the Constitution gives the federal government the right to steal my money and use it to play in outer space?

RCA
11-15-2008, 11:37 PM
Which enumerated power in the Constitution gives the federal government the right to steal my money and use it to play in outer space?

The only possible loophole that I can imagine would be the national defense aspect.

Kludge
11-15-2008, 11:39 PM
The only possible loophole that I can imagine would be the national defense aspect.

Don't forget the Insterstellar Commerce Clause!

ArrestPoliticians
11-15-2008, 11:54 PM
I'm anxious in being enlightened for this topic. I understand some quasi-space travel is going on privately, costing millions for individuals to take part in it, but how exactly would space travel work under privatization?? I mean, it's been almost 40 years since the government subsidized human landing on the moon...it's 2008 and we're just starting to get billionaires to fly a couple miles outside of our atmosphere. Who knows how long it will take for the private sector to adopt space travel to be as popular as going to Europe or Australia for vacation, but it seems as if it's very, very far off. Wasn't NASA a good thing??

Well, satellites are necessary for modern technical needs. These companies would get off their butt and innovate space once it was profitable to do so. If the people want space travel, let them amend the constitution.

Verad
11-16-2008, 12:06 AM
Skimming through this topic, it seems that no one here is aware of Virgin Galactic (and other private firms that are starting to pop up). Some of the stuff they're doing is pretty neat, even if its currently limited to space tourism at the moment. Also, the X-Prize foundation is a non-profit (I think) that is offering prizes to individuals and firms that are able to create new technologies according to a vague outline (like the Ansari X-Prize to create a spacecraft capable of entering space twice within a specific time frame). Google is sponsoring the Lunar X-Prize, which will be given to the first couple of firms/individuals that are able to put a robot on the moon that can send back a prerecorded message, send video and other stuff, with bonuses for teams that are able to find (and recover?) human artifacts from previous space ventures and other things. It is a great model for encouraging space exploration without gov't.

Elwar
11-16-2008, 12:10 AM
Cutting out NASA was probably - or definitely - the weakest part of Ron Paul's policy suggestions during the 2008 campaign.

Umm, Ron Paul voted for funding NASA. He was actually attacked for voting to fund NASA.

Conquistador
11-16-2008, 12:16 AM
The bulk of NASA's duties today involve scientific research (the Mars rovers, Hubble, etc.) NASA then publishes the findings of these missions for the scientific community. It can therefore be assumed that if NASA were to be abolished, these missions would be performed mostly by universities and funded by a foundation or by corporations who would benefit from the research.

The government has actually been surprisingly lax on the private spaceflight industry thus far. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-5382) allows passengers aboard private space vehicles to travel into orbit at their own risk, that is, without government regulation. Unfortunately, the law expires in 2012, and since its main opponent, Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota is the Chairman of the House Transportation Committee it will most likely not be renewed.

BeFranklin
11-16-2008, 12:23 AM
An oldie organization from the 70s - they fought off the orginal UN moon treaty. Space Colony at L5 Lagrangian point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/L5_masthead.gif

FYI: The wikipedia article is wrong about the L5 organization - once a member, always a member, and it only disbands on the space colony at L5.
Hence why many of the local L5s still exist in that name.

BeFranklin
11-16-2008, 12:25 AM
Skimming through this topic, it seems that no one here is aware of Virgin Galactic (and other private firms that are starting to pop up). Some of the stuff they're doing is pretty neat, even if its currently limited to space tourism at the moment. Also, the X-Prize foundation is a non-profit (I think) that is offering prizes to individuals and firms that are able to create new technologies according to a vague outline (like the Ansari X-Prize to create a spacecraft capable of entering space twice within a specific time frame). Google is sponsoring the Lunar X-Prize, which will be given to the first couple of firms/individuals that are able to put a robot on the moon that can send back a prerecorded message, send video and other stuff, with bonuses for teams that are able to find (and recover?) human artifacts from previous space ventures and other things. It is a great model for encouraging space exploration without gov't.

I am. I'm waiting to be able to bug out - into space :D

qh4dotcom
11-16-2008, 01:00 AM
What Ron Paul would say about space travel:

1) We can't afford it, the government is broke, where's the money going to come from?
2) Nowhere in the constitution is the government given the authority to explore space.

Your thoughts?

Danke
11-16-2008, 01:04 AM
What Ron Paul would say about space travel:

1) We can't afford it, the government is broke, where's the money going to come from?
2) Nowhere in the constitution is the government given the authority to explore space.

Your thoughts?

General Welfare clause. Martians are a poor people, and need subsidizes.

AutoDas
11-16-2008, 01:09 AM
Maybe if NASA didn't own 1,000 patents then private industry would be in better shape.

jacmicwag
11-16-2008, 01:12 AM
Tin foil hat technology is vastly underrated.

AJ Antimony
11-16-2008, 01:27 AM
Private companies as per free market principles can do a much better job exploring space than government. However, if I were in Congress, the only non-vital government expenditure I would consider is money for a space program. I'd consider it for a couple of reasons. 1. The space program isn't politics so it's hard to corrupt, and 2. Space is the future of exploration. Exploring used to be a Navy thing. Nonetheless, I'd always vote NO on NASA budgets unless the entire yearly budget produced a surplus. If the government is going to run a deficit, then I wouldn't vote for NASA funding.

AJ Antimony
11-16-2008, 01:31 AM
What Ron Paul would say about space travel:

1) We can't afford it, the government is broke, where's the money going to come from?
2) Nowhere in the constitution is the government given the authority to explore space.

Your thoughts?

1. Bingo
2. One could argue that the space program is the Navy of the future. The Navy used to do the exploring; now it's up to the space program. In this regard, I almost consider the space program part of the military. When I say military, I'm talking about command structure, missions, etc. I am NOT talking about war. The Constitution also said nothing about an Air Force

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 01:33 AM
Skimming through this topic, it seems that no one here is aware of Virgin Galactic (and other private firms that are starting to pop up). Some of the stuff they're doing is pretty neat, even if its currently limited to space tourism at the moment. Also, the X-Prize foundation is a non-profit (I think) that is offering prizes to individuals and firms that are able to create new technologies according to a vague outline (like the Ansari X-Prize to create a spacecraft capable of entering space twice within a specific time frame). Google is sponsoring the Lunar X-Prize, which will be given to the first couple of firms/individuals that are able to put a robot on the moon that can send back a prerecorded message, send video and other stuff, with bonuses for teams that are able to find (and recover?) human artifacts from previous space ventures and other things. It is a great model for encouraging space exploration without gov't.


Yes, I knew Virgin was doing this, but none of it would have been accomplished without prior government models. The private sector did not just jump right in and start designing this stuff--they've waited 40+ years for the government to test, design, and launch the programs and research. Had the Government not have done anything with space, none of these companies would have such programs. This is evidence enough that even with privatization, some tasks are simply too large without government performing them like the military and space travel.

BeFranklin
11-16-2008, 01:34 AM
1. Bingo
2. One could argue that the space program is the Navy of the future. The Navy used to do the exploring; now it's up to the space program. In this regard, I almost consider the space program part of the military. When I say military, I'm talking about command structure, missions, etc. I am NOT talking about war. The Constitution also said nothing about an Air Force

http://www.lifeemerging.com/files/images/captain-kirk.jpg

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 01:36 AM
The bulk of NASA's duties today involve scientific research (the Mars rovers, Hubble, etc.) NASA then publishes the findings of these missions for the scientific community. It can therefore be assumed that if NASA were to be abolished, these missions would be performed mostly by universities and funded by a foundation or by corporations who would benefit from the research.

The government has actually been surprisingly lax on the private spaceflight industry thus far. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-5382) allows passengers aboard private space vehicles to travel into orbit at their own risk, that is, without government regulation. Unfortunately, the law expires in 2012, and since its main opponent, Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota is the Chairman of the House Transportation Committee it will most likely not be renewed.

Universities would be pursuing these programs?? If Ron Paul believes the Federal Government is too broke to pursue a few billion dollars on space programs a year, then America's universities sure as hell won't have the money. My tuition just went up 8% this year. My university is having enough trouble raising $14 million to build new facilities due to the economic woes and, well, getting millions of dollars in donations simply isn't an easy task regardless of the times.

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 01:43 AM
Private companies as per free market principles can do a much better job exploring space than government. However, if I were in Congress, the only non-vital government expenditure I would consider is money for a space program. I'd consider it for a couple of reasons. 1. The space program isn't politics so it's hard to corrupt, and 2. Space is the future of exploration. Exploring used to be a Navy thing. Nonetheless, I'd always vote NO on NASA budgets unless the entire yearly budget produced a surplus. If the government is going to run a deficit, then I wouldn't vote for NASA funding.

Private companies can barely even get out of the atmosphere, let alone explore space.

This is frustrating. I'm tired of these "free market does everything better" theories. For most things, they do; others, they don't. The military cannot be held to the free market. I'm glad the government provides us with a military because I, unlike many of you, have looked around lately. I don't want some of these people (some of which are likely yourselves) to have a private military force. I don't want warlords running America as would exist privately. The theoretical bullshit you guys throw is ridiculous and completely impractical.

Free market can't solve things it can't get to. The Government can't nuke Neptune just as Company X can't land on the moon. It's too big of a task for private companies to do, and too costly of an endeavor. For those of you who believe "well, if it's too expensive, it's not a good idea". I suppose living on this planet is something sustainable in a hundred years, right? Even though we'll all likely be dead, or wish we would be, people won't last another hundred years on this planet.

Knightskye
11-16-2008, 01:47 AM
There are private companies who would like to explore space.

Such as SpaceX:
http://www.spacex.com/F1-004-summary.php

They're more careful with the money because it's theirs. And if they waste it, they're in trouble. The government takes your money and doesn't care what it does with it. Plus, the government is in bed with the special interests, so they could allocate more money than is needed just to help out a favorite company *cough*Lockheed*cough*.

But let's explain what is needed for space exploration:

Money
Technology
Brains
Labor

See government in that list? It's not necessary.

Ron Paul wrote an essay (http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html) about NASA, and said we only needed the parts necessary for national security. This quote sums up what I said, only more articulate. ;)


Even worse, this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid well deserved embarassment. American companies desperately need to get their satellites into space. They have been blocked from using the cheapest, most reliable launcher in the world which unfortuneately happens to be the Soviet Proton.

NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development, twenty years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an extent that may well be irreparable. It is inconceivable that a private firm could have committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better.

Our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking their own resources for their own dreams. We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators. The reciepts would be applied to the national debt. Then, all government roadblocks to commercial development of space must be removed.

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 01:53 AM
A great example of privatization of a government function is the postal service. I hear so much criticism of the USPS because there's inefficiencies and "waste" (funny because I find mailing a letter 3,000 miles for 42 cents or whatever the current rate is to be cheaper than driving). Even if it is subsidized, that is one good area to be subsidized. I also happen to get my mail faster than ever with the USPS--usually about 3 or 4 days from the time it's mailed via first class. Not bad at all.

The private sector has proven to utterly suck balls at postal services. Look at the industry right now with job losses galore and profit margins going negative. The private sector is LOSING money in an area of necessity even though theoretical thinkers like Rothbard provide evidence that the private sector has all the answers; it doesn't. FedEx, UPS, and DHL are all getting their asses kicked.

Don't get me started on roads. I understand with the Department of Transportation that the federal road system has gone terribly downhill, but that's the fault unconstitutionality and massive bureaucracy. Regardless, I could not imagine America with privatization of roads. The idea we would have the roads we have now because we'll have hundreds of thousands of these generous companies that have absolutely no interest in roads to suddenly build them and maintain them, is ridiculous. The roads would suck, we'd have only a handful, and it would literally take us back to horseback times. Where exactly will all of this free market investment come from if we suddenly decided not to tax gasoline at $0.18/gallon???

Kludge
11-16-2008, 01:59 AM
The USPS is very efficient. I use them almost every day for shipping packages and letters alike and have not yet been alerted of one loss that was their fault. It's probably the most useful government service for me.

However, does that mean that people should be forced to pay taxes by threatening with imprisonment even if they don't use the service? I don't believe so.

Taking it one step further, I believe anyone who would vote to fund such a non-essential service is guilty of attempted theft and should be imprisoned.

nbhadja
11-16-2008, 02:10 AM
A great example of privatization of a government function is the postal service. I hear so much criticism of the USPS because there's inefficiencies and "waste" (funny because I find mailing a letter 3,000 miles for 42 cents or whatever the current rate is to be cheaper than driving). Even if it is subsidized, that is one good area to be subsidized. I also happen to get my mail faster than ever with the USPS--usually about 3 or 4 days from the time it's mailed via first class. Not bad at all.

The private sector has proven to utterly suck balls at postal services. Look at the industry right now with job losses galore and profit margins going negative. The private sector is LOSING money in an area of necessity even though theoretical thinkers like Rothbard provide evidence that the private sector has all the answers; it doesn't. FedEx, UPS, and DHL are all getting their asses kicked.

Don't get me started on roads. I understand with the Department of Transportation that the federal road system has gone terribly downhill, but that's the fault unconstitutionality and massive bureaucracy. Regardless, I could not imagine America with privatization of roads. The idea we would have the roads we have now because we'll have hundreds of thousands of these generous companies that have absolutely no interest in roads to suddenly build them and maintain them, is ridiculous. The roads would suck, we'd have only a handful, and it would literally take us back to horseback times. Where exactly will all of this free market investment come from if we suddenly decided not to tax gasoline at $0.18/gallon???


For the roads I agree the government can take care of it, Ron Paul even says the government has the option of taking care of it.

But one think you do not understand is that the government is robbing everyone of their wealth right now, meaning less investment for private companies like UPS in this anti free market system. In a free market system people would have a lot more money to spend, meaning more investment for private companies like postal service and space exploration.

The government does not invent anything, people invent it.

The government merely just takes money from people and gives it to a designated inventor or researcher, leaving the other private talented researches without the funds they need because the citizens will not fund them because they do not have much money left after government stole it all.

Hence the reason researchers hired by the government invent a lot in certain fields like space exploration.

Danke
11-16-2008, 02:11 AM
A great example of privatization of a government function is the postal service. I hear so much criticism of the USPS because there's inefficiencies and "waste" (funny because I find mailing a letter 3,000 miles for 42 cents or whatever the current rate is to be cheaper than driving). Even if it is subsidized, that is one good area to be subsidized. I also happen to get my mail faster than ever with the USPS--usually about 3 or 4 days from the time it's mailed via first class. Not bad at all.

The private sector has proven to utterly suck balls at postal services. Look at the industry right now with job losses galore and profit margins going negative. The private sector is LOSING money in an area of necessity even though theoretical thinkers like Rothbard provide evidence that the private sector has all the answers; it doesn't. FedEx, UPS, and DHL are all getting their asses kicked.

Don't get me started on roads. I understand with the Department of Transportation that the federal road system has gone terribly downhill, but that's the fault unconstitutionality and massive bureaucracy. Regardless, I could not imagine America with privatization of roads. The idea we would have the roads we have now because we'll have hundreds of thousands of these generous companies that have absolutely no interest in roads to suddenly build them and maintain them, is ridiculous. The roads would suck, we'd have only a handful, and it would literally take us back to horseback times. Where exactly will all of this free market investment come from if we suddenly decided not to tax gasoline at $0.18/gallon???

What are you talking about? One can't directly compete against delivery of the mail. Just look what they did to Lysander Spooner when he tried.

nbhadja
11-16-2008, 02:13 AM
"Where exactly will all of this free market investment come from if we suddenly decided not to tax gasoline at $0.18/gallon???"

Well considering the fact that the gas tax gets passed onto the consumers leaving them with less wealth, I would say getting rid of the gas tax would increase investment into the free market, not to mention getting rid of the the huge income tax and the 15% inflation tax (rising each year).

tremendoustie
11-16-2008, 02:19 AM
The thing is, I can't donate money to the government because it's taking enough from me already.

I am saying the correct way for you to support these programs, if you believe they are worthwhile, is to fight to stop the government from taking our money forcibly, then support it yourself voluntarily.

Suppose the local mob boss was sending thugs to our doors demanding money, money which he then used to, say, fund his brother who was researching cancer treatments. If I support the work of his brother, the right thing for me to do is not to support continued thug muggings, but rather, to try to stop the thugs, and voluntarily send my own money to support the cancer research.

This is because, while I might support the research, I recognize your right to have different priorities than I do.



I think you're all assuming I'm a statist and I support extravagant military budgets---ironic since you're the ones saying we cannot assume anything. Remember I'm a member of Ron Paul Forums and am not trolling, so I'd hope that at least would speak for something. I am for limited government, and was only curious as to how the private industry would or even could perform such things as space travel without precedent technology provided by the government.

Sure, that's a legit question. I think that space travel is probably not worth as much as we put into it. That said, there is a great amount of space research that could be funded cooperatively by universities and research institutions. In addition, there are industrial purposes for space technology -- like satellites. Wealthy people would pay for tourism.

In addition, if enough people are interested in space research and science, it could be funded by charities. I know I'd kick in 10 bucks for a cool new space telescope -- all we need is 1/10 of the country agreeing with me, and it'd be funded. Actually, if things were done more efficiently, it could probably happen for a lot cheaper than that.

I do think your name is unfortunate ;)



I think if we didn't have space travel via government, the private sector would never have developed similar means to do a very limited exploration today. In fact, I would doubt any of us in our lifetime would see privatized space travel--which is the distant future (you think humans will be landlocked on this planet forever?) --if we had no government mandating NASA.


Sure. The problem is, we can't see what the alternative would be, if these brains and resources were doing other research. Suppose cancer would be cured -- this is not unrealistic, I know how smart and capable people at NASA are. Are you willing to give up the cure for cancer to have a few space technologies and missions we wouldn't otherwise have? Suppose that alternative fuel would be developed -- it would be cheap and environmentally friendly, and we wouldn't need to import more oil. But we don't have this, because these engineering minds were instead working on spacecraft. Perhaps we would have cheap water desalinization or purification, which would have saved millions by forever solving droughts and water borne illness.

These minds would be working, the only difference is, they'd be working on what people express a need for, rather than what the government tells them to.

Think about what you would give money to. For me, space technology is cool, but feeding the poor is more important, and I would give more to fund those efforts. If most are like me, I think that tells us what is more important to people. I might invest in a company researching new technologies, like advanced photovoltaics, because I recognize the huge potential such a technology could have. Thus, resources are allocated towards solving the most important human problems, and it is done freely, not funded by force and violence.



I would gladly donate money if we didn't have an income tax for space travel. The problem is now the level of space travel seems negligible so I probably wouldn't pour my money into the project unless we were going to Mars or doing something more productive than casual explorations of space.

Great. That means that once we get rid of the income tax, assuming most people agree with you, we'll have a space program that more closely matches what people want, namely Mars exploration, or more targeted, productive things.



Can I expect you to fund the project? No I cannot, so go ahead and move to Liechtenstein where you'll have a utopian tax haven.


You got the first part of that right, you can't. Why do I have to move to Liechtenstein to avoid thugs that wish to take my money by force? Is that just? And there are thugs, and taxes, in Lichtenstein as well. This, "we own the country, we have a right to your life and your property if you live here, move away if you don't like it" argument is total B.S. It's about as valid as the justification from the highway robber that "this bridge and road are my domain for robbery, and if you don't like it, take the long way 'round".

Furthermore, there's no place to move. Everyplace on earth has people in the business of taking the fruit of your labor by force. Every highway and bridge has a robber proclaiming ownership. You do not own this country, nor the people who live on it, nor the things they produce. Stop pretending that you do.



I have no problem with taxation as neither did the Founders. Sorry, but I'll support Jeffersonian policies before I'll adhere to Rothbardian theories of anarchism.


You like Jefferson, eh? Howbout this:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
- Thomas Jefferson

Or,

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
-Thomas Jefferson

Or,

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

The founders supported tariffs, which make a lot more sense -- at least people within the country are free. They certainly never intended something as outrageous as the income tax.



No Founders that I knew of supported anarchy. Wasn't it Thomas Paine, perhaps one of the more radical of the revolutionaries, who said Government was a "necessary evil"?? So I guess if you believe Rothbard is brighter than Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Paine, then I'm sorry I wasted my time replying.

How about we use our own brains, mmmkay? I've got no problem with government. I would definitely voluntarily give some money to the government for police protection, national security, courts, etc. However, I think there should be an option for those who wish to opt out. That way we do not run our government by thuggery.

Oh, and by the way, Thomas Paine said government at its BEST was a necessary evil, and at its worst an intolerable one. I'll let you judge which we have now. Here are a couple more quotes of his, since you like him so much:

"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute."
Thomas Paine

We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.”
- Thomas Paine

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue."
Thomas Paine (regarding taxation)

And Ben Franklin:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."
- Benjamin Franklin


George Washington:

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
- George Washington

"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth."
- George Washington

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-George Washington

John Adams:

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
-John Adams

Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.
-John Adams

James Madison:

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its
jurisdiction.”
- James Madison

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
- James Madison

A couple extras I like:

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection."
- John Stuart Mill

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."
- Colonel David Crockett




It's because we live in a world where government must exist (Move to Somalia if anarchism is the way--last week over 1,000 people watched a 13 year old teenager get stoned to death because she was raped and that was considered adultery--there's your utopia of anarchism) that we must pay taxes. If government is not to exist, as I mentioned earlier, then fly to Somalia--oh wait you can't because the warlords there, which are nothing more than private individuals existing in an anarchy state, have threatened to shoot down any and all aircraft flying into the airports of Somalia. So you go find a way to get there, live there for a day if you could even avoid being shot at, and tell me how your opinion of Government changes.


I already said I'm not anarchist. And, if you are capable of thinking honestly for one moment, you'll realize it is a ridiculous argument to take one example of a heinous act in an example of a country which has only a weak government precisely because it has descended into violence, and proclaim it as the inevitable result of anarchy. I would actually have a better argument were I to say, "go to Nazi Germany circa 1942 if you want to see your utopia of 'government'".

I think we can be more adult than this. If you honestly believe that stoning 13 year old rape victims is the inevitable result of voluntary government, please give rational arguments in support of your view.

Yours is a ridiculous false dichotomy: "I must send my thugs to force you to pay taxes, or we will become somalia, and stone 13 year old rape victims". Does this work on anyone?



If government is to exist, then it is the fate of us all that we pay some sort of taxes to fund it even if we disagree with a certain policy that others advocate. That is why you elect representatives that believe in your beliefs. Even Ron Paul mentioned this point when debating Huckabee.


Yeah, no. We can support those programs we wish to see implemented. I for one will pay for police protection, courts, and national defense, assuming they do a decent job. Why should I be forced to pay for NASA, for example, especially since it's found nowhere in the constitution? If a program can't get adequate funding voluntarily, it's probably not worth having.

I would be much more happy with the tack the founders took -- tariffs wouldn't be so bad, and wouldn't be such an affront to liberty. The income tax is an outrage.



I think many of you are lost. This is Ron Paul Forums. Perhaps you didn't take notice that he was running to re-instate the Constitution as being a document to be respected and followed. Many of you are advocating no taxation as it would support policies you don't. How is government to exist on a national level to provide for the provisions of the Constitution if we cannot tax??


The constitution would be much, much, much better than what we have now. I can think for myself, so yes, there are certain points I probably disagree with Paul on. I certainly support his efforts, however, and think he is far and away our best option for leadership in this country. I can get behind a man I agree with 99%, especially when the rest of the country seems to intend to kill liberty all together.

I for one would be happy to opt into a government which follows the constitution, and would voluntarily pay my share to fund it. I just don't want to send thugs to your door to force you to pay for it. Is that really extreme? Because it just seems like basic decency to me.



Must you agree with everything for it to be a valid tax?? Funny and ironic...this is called "Groupthink" if I remember correctly. We only have policies everyone agrees with--good luck finding a country or government where that could happen.

Nope, no need for 100% agreement, we have whatever programs enough people are willing to pay for. If I dislike FEMA, but there are a bunch of other people willing to help fund it, it's gonna happen.



So you're advocating anarchy, which is just as retarded as advocating universal health care.


Translation: So! You're advocating people being free from my thugs showing up to demand money on a regular basis, lest they be thrown in a cage! That's just as retarded as advocating I beat more people up and demand more money!



Again, move away from the theoretical models of Rothbard and Rockwell, and move to Somalia for a day. Tell me the fruits of anarchy. Tell me the evils of Government.

Move to North Korea or Hitler's Germany for a day. Tell me the fruits of government by force. Tell me the evils of freedom.

Or we could have an actual logical discussion instead of one based on absurd, sensationalist examples.

Expatriate
11-16-2008, 03:16 AM
Nice tremendous post, tremendoustie. I completely agree with your point. For some reason a lot of people think government is above having human flaws, even though it's made up of humans.

idiom
11-16-2008, 04:19 AM
Nasa should avoid the launch business. They certainly have governmental role in weather and basic research.

jbuttell
11-16-2008, 05:15 AM
Private companies can barely even get out of the atmosphere, let alone explore space.

This is frustrating. I'm tired of these "free market does everything better" theories. For most things, they do; others, they don't. The military cannot be held to the free market. I'm glad the government provides us with a military because I, unlike many of you, have looked around lately. I don't want some of these people (some of which are likely yourselves) to have a private military force. I don't want warlords running America as would exist privately. The theoretical bullshit you guys throw is ridiculous and completely impractical.

Free market can't solve things it can't get to. The Government can't nuke Neptune just as Company X can't land on the moon. It's too big of a task for private companies to do, and too costly of an endeavor. For those of you who believe "well, if it's too expensive, it's not a good idea". I suppose living on this planet is something sustainable in a hundred years, right? Even though we'll all likely be dead, or wish we would be, people won't last another hundred years on this planet.

I don't understand how one can so quickly dismiss the possibility of the private sector developing technology, more efficiently than our government. Sure, the government likely did it much faster than the private sector would, but what has it really done for us?

Consider the amazing progress by Armadillo Aerospace. I'm not dismissing what they've learned from NASA. I'm comparing them to today's NASA who has repeatedly failed to produce a shuttle replacement, for a variety of reasons. Dollar for Dollar, Armadillo and some of the other Xprize guys are delivering far more bang for the buck.

More importantly though, Socialize_me, I think people should ask themselves, what is the necessity for government to spearhead technologies like space exploration, or the nuclear bomb... or even the internet. I've had many dreams about rocketing to outer space with nuclear propulsion and a kickass wifi link, but I can't help but wonder if some of these developments have hastened our demise.

We've all been trained to quickly rattle off all those amazing toys the government has given us over the years through NASA and other Military projects. I look at the other side of things and wonder what it may have been like - if society grew at a slower pace. One thing's for certain, the government now has bigger guns and a stronger means to monitor the people.

What about some of the technologies like fuelcells and solar. Where are they? They're all still exotic and out of the reach of the average person. Had the industry not been exposed to them, one could argue that more practical technologies would have emerged made from less expensive materials. I'd have a hard time being convinced that if not for NASA we wouldn't have solar. Solar, while a challenging technology to perfect, is an inevitable technology. It has been long understood that plants harness energy from the sun, it's only a matter of time before people tried to figure out a way to mimic it. But I digress - I know solar is only one of many many technologies they helped develop.

If that technology had been utilized to decentralize power - to make cities more self sufficient, I'd be impressed. Unfortunately that isn't the case 40 years after NASA so graciously dumped all of these technologies in our lap. The Feds are now tapping into our bank accounts with this technology to ensure they get their full cut. Our cars are being outfitted with GPS tracking devices and kill-switches for Police. We all willfully walk around with GPS tracking devices in our pockets. Cities are becoming bigger and bigger clusterfucks, ticking timebombs just waiting for a disaster that disrupts the water and food chain causing mass panic.

Where is all that technology that's going to save our ass when the shit really goes down? I love technology - but I'm not seeing it really working for us much these days.

fatjohn
11-16-2008, 05:30 AM
Why do we need to travel into space? Every time I see a space shuttle launch (or explode), I think about how much of my money is going up in smoke... Scrap NASA.

This comment is as ridiculous as saying why does Columbus go sailing on my expense in fifteenth century Spain. Don't you use GPS, don't you watch the weather channel in order to now where to flee when the next hurricane hits, don't you watch BBC as an american or CNN as a european, never made a call to someone across the atlantic, never used google earth, don't wanna know when a solar flare erupts and might radiate passengers on flights 10 kilometers up, don't wanna know when a tsunami might strike ...

That's just the applications, we ain't talking yet about possible moon mining within the next century, about what diseases might be cured due to science conducted in space, new technologies that emerge from the technologie push that is the core of the challenge within space flight like solar photovoltaics and wireless drill.

And btw NASA's budget up until this day is likely to be less then that bill congress passed a few days ago

fatjohn
11-16-2008, 05:49 AM
Now for the real question of the OP:
I think that many good things came from space exploration but nonetheless it could have happened much faster with truly free economy. If we would take 1945 as the moment the world became a truly free economy, the space industry wouldn't have put a man on the moon in 1970 yet, but it would have steadily grown. There would have been a few decades for adventurers who wanted space tourism and then companies would see the need to forecast the weather and to know where you are with GPS so funds would have come from the commercial sector. And i personally believe that we would be further by now (like moonbase and possible mining to helium 3). But in the real world the commercial sector was from the start lagging governments due to the moonrace of the sixties. And it took until now (approximatly 30 years of nothing spectacular going on) that private companies are getting in the game. So i would say NASA bad, space exploration good.

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 06:15 AM
How exactly could we have space exploration/moon landings without government?

RADICAL CONCEPT: Voluntary contributions and investments. :eek: Not enough? Don't do it. ;)

Verad
11-16-2008, 06:51 AM
White Knight 1 and SpaceShipOne are by far the cheapest means for humans to travel into space ever.

Private ventures into space may not seem like much right now, but just give them time.

Andrew-Austin
11-16-2008, 09:08 AM
Nahh...are you kidding me?? Rockwell and Rothbard were and are economists with some philosophy. The Founders?? Look at what most of their abilities were--they were Renaissance men with expertise in many fields, and most of them were all individually like that. Many were fluent in multiple languages as well, not that being unilingual is a bad thing.

Rockwell and Rothbard are/were pretty well informed on economic and monetary history. The Founders? Well, to give an example, James Madison locked himself for weeks in his house prior to the Constitutional Convention to study Roman and Greek Law. Most of the Founders, at least the well known ones that I have referred to, knew more about history and law than anyone today. It's quite astonishing how people like Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were all educated on economic understanding with very little to go off of considering the first book on economics was written in 1776 by Adam Smith, they all knew law just as good as, perhaps even better, than our Supreme Court justices, and their understanding of history was better than anything I've read by Rockwell or Rothbard. In fact after reading Rothbard's criticism of the K-wave supercycle theory, I question exactly his historical reasoning.

To compare Rockwell or Rothbard with Jefferson or Adams, or to even suggest they're more intelligent, is pretty radical and offensive--not to mention very mind boggling. It's clear you've read very little of Adams and Jefferson, but a lot of Rockwell and Rothbard. Considering Jefferson was a botanist, philosopher, historian, architect, statesman, archaeologist, paleontologist, author, and inventor, and that Adams was many of those in addition to being a lawyer, I really question YOUR reasoning as to say Rothbard and Rockwell are brighter men than Jefferson and Adams were. Unbelievable! Can you name the professions of Rothbard and Rockwell? Historians, philosophers, and economists...hardly anything comparable to the Founders. But of course, you read very little into them and more into the dogmatic views of the anarchists. Move to Somalia and test their theories out if they're so bright. Then again, anarchists never cease to amaze me how they make up more and more excuses than anything. I suppose Somalia would be excused as a bad model by Rothbard and Rockwell...just as frustrating debating folks like you as it is debating Communists saying communism has never been tried because it actually failed several times historically.

Just excuse piled on top of excuse. I look at the real world, not theory, and I find the theorists do nothing less than make excuses to keep their utopian vision preserved. The Founders looked at history and modeled America after many examples of it. Rothbard and Rockwell, when they deviate from their historical references and advocate universal voluntarism and no government, are suggesting mere theory. If you want your life to be an experiment testing out anarchy, then it will be a very short and miserable one.

Your taking this way too fucking personally it seems, did I even say I was an anarchist? No, so stop telling me to move to Somalia. I even implied the founders could be right about the necessary evil of the state. :rolleyes: The government the founders set up by the way, failed.

My opinion still stands.

forsmant
11-16-2008, 09:12 AM
Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations, was not the first economics book written. If it were why would he reference so many other books while witting his own? Have you read any of the book or just asserting the usual lie that you were told by your history teachers?

dude58677
11-16-2008, 09:42 AM
I'm anxious in being enlightened for this topic. I understand some quasi-space travel is going on privately, costing millions for individuals to take part in it, but how exactly would space travel work under privatization?? I mean, it's been almost 40 years since the government subsidized human landing on the moon...it's 2008 and we're just starting to get billionaires to fly a couple miles outside of our atmosphere. Who knows how long it will take for the private sector to adopt space travel to be as popular as going to Europe or Australia for vacation, but it seems as if it's very, very far off. Wasn't NASA a good thing??

Ever hear of Burt Rutan and SpaceShip One?

Flash
11-16-2008, 09:49 AM
I wouldn't mind being taxed for Space exploration. Just imagine landing on Mars in the next 50 years.

torchbearer
11-16-2008, 10:26 AM
Private Space Societies, as in private non-profit ventures.
Like the people who fund SETI now.

torchbearer
11-16-2008, 10:29 AM
I wouldn't mind being taxed for Space exploration. Just imagine landing on Mars in the next 50 years.

In the spirit of making it a voluntary tax, I think most of the government programs should be funded by adding money to a checklist of things you want to fund on your tax filings.
They have an optional tax to fund campagns I believe... you can check it and put up your own money for it voluntarily.

I would fund the space program, but not homeland security.

Or you can contribute to a space society that is working on settling mars.

AJ Antimony
11-16-2008, 12:21 PM
Private companies can barely even get out of the atmosphere, let alone explore space.

This is frustrating. I'm tired of these "free market does everything better" theories. For most things, they do; others, they don't. The military cannot be held to the free market. I'm glad the government provides us with a military because I, unlike many of you, have looked around lately. I don't want some of these people (some of which are likely yourselves) to have a private military force. I don't want warlords running America as would exist privately. The theoretical bullshit you guys throw is ridiculous and completely impractical.

Free market can't solve things it can't get to. The Government can't nuke Neptune just as Company X can't land on the moon. It's too big of a task for private companies to do, and too costly of an endeavor. For those of you who believe "well, if it's too expensive, it's not a good idea". I suppose living on this planet is something sustainable in a hundred years, right? Even though we'll all likely be dead, or wish we would be, people won't last another hundred years on this planet.

Private companies are becoming the future of space. You probably missed SpaceShipOne hitting orbit. The reason private companies hadn't until now was because of the Cold War and the Moon Race. NASA, like a private company, was competing with another, so millions of people were interested, so NASA snatched up everybody interested in space. Now that they aren't in competition, NASA isn't too exciting, so people are starting to go their own ways.

To better understand what a private space program would look like, think about 17th century Europe or something. A lot of ships crossed the Atlantic for economic purposes, and independent of government. They were exploring. That's the future of the space program.

tremendoustie
11-16-2008, 12:30 PM
I wouldn't mind being taxed for Space exploration. Just imagine landing on Mars in the next 50 years.

That's great, then you can send your money voluntarily -- I will send some too, for certain space programs. I am sure you wouldn't want to forcibly take the money of someone who is opposed to it though, right? So taxation isn't really the way to go here ...

MGreen
11-16-2008, 12:55 PM
Rockwell and Rothbard are/were pretty well informed on economic and monetary history. The Founders? Well, to give an example, James Madison locked himself for weeks in his house prior to the Constitutional Convention to study Roman and Greek Law. Most of the Founders, at least the well known ones that I have referred to, knew more about history and law than anyone today. It's quite astonishing how people like Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were all educated on economic understanding with very little to go off of considering the first book on economics was written in 1776 by Adam Smith, they all knew law just as good as, perhaps even better, than our Supreme Court justices, and their understanding of history was better than anything I've read by Rockwell or Rothbard.
The part in bold undermines your entire argument. To criticize anarchy because the Founders, as brilliant as they were, believed in limited government is faulty, because the idea of anarchy was very much undeveloped. This is especially true for market anarchy because, as you said, economic theory was just starting to be formed and understood.

It could probably be argued that, without the Founders, individualism and laissez-faire would not have had the movements they did in the 19th century. We may as well respond to your original question with: "Well, Thomas Jefferson didn't fund space exploration, so clearly NASA is bad."

regtoday
11-16-2008, 02:40 PM
"How exactly could we have space exploration/moon landings without government?"

Ever hear of the Ansari X-Prize? They offered a 10 million dollar prize to the first private team to successfully launch two consecutive sub-orbital flights into space. Here is the second flight by Virgin Galactic's Space Ship One which won them 10 million dollars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2dZbVPS7Zs

Now there is the Google Lunar X-Prize which offers 30 million dollars to the first 2 teams to launch and rove a robotic lunar lander.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2dZbVPS7Zs

What incentives are there for private space exploration?

With the moons low gravity and a 15 psi atmosphere you could strap on wings to your arms and fly like a bird. Does that sound like fun?

newyearsrevolution08
11-16-2008, 02:41 PM
Easy, let the private industries PAY FOR IT with investor money instead of tax dollars.

Remove the government and that will also remove the hugely inflated costs for everything. I think it wouldn't even cost a 1/4 of the current space budget once you remove the fed and their bullshit military and top secret programs which odds are have zero to do with space exploration or expanding our knowledge of what is out there.

Let wealthy people like that virgin atlantic owner fund stuff like this, hell he already funds his own space exploration ideas with that one plane he wants to be able to go into the upper atmosphere or whatever it is supposed to do.

People get confused thinking that WITHOUT the government we wouldn't be able to do things and that is VERY WRONG. Once we remove the government THEN we will be able to do amazing things.

Look at computer cost prices, now imagine if the government ran the computer industry and how shitty the comps AND the pricing would be. It works when you allow those who want to become wealthy to BECOME WEALTHY and continue advancing our technology.

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 02:47 PM
The part in bold undermines your entire argument. To criticize anarchy because the Founders, as brilliant as they were, believed in limited government is faulty, because the idea of anarchy was very much undeveloped. This is especially true for market anarchy because, as you said, economic theory was just starting to be formed and understood.

It could probably be argued that, without the Founders, individualism and laissez-faire would not have had the movements they did in the 19th century. We may as well respond to your original question with: "Well, Thomas Jefferson didn't fund space exploration, so clearly NASA is bad." Well T J did bail out Napoleon on his Rothschild debts, purchased Louisiana, etc. at a fire sale price. Too bad no one had 'splained to the inhabitants that France owned and had sold them. :p :rolleyes:

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 02:56 PM
What are you talking about? One can't directly compete against delivery of the mail. Just look what they did to Lysander Spooner when he tried.

What the fuck are you talking about? Do UPS, FedEx, and DHL not exist?? They can deliver packages, freight, and envelopes, just not letters. Letters are far less profitable for businesses to take on anyway compared to delivering freight and package orders.

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 02:57 PM
Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations, was not the first economics book written. If it were why would he reference so many other books while witting his own? Have you read any of the book or just asserting the usual lie that you were told by your history teachers?

Uhm...The Wealth of Nations was the first economics book written and gave birth to capitalism.

Danke
11-16-2008, 03:06 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? Do UPS, FedEx, and DHL not exist?? They can deliver packages, freight, and envelopes, just not letters. Letters are far less profitable for businesses to take on anyway compared to delivering freight and package orders.

The American mail system is a monopoly still, as it is currently illegal for any of their main competitors - FedEx, UPs, Roadway, etc - to offer first class mail service.

Flash
11-16-2008, 03:10 PM
That's great, then you can send your money voluntarily -- I will send some too, for certain space programs. I am sure you wouldn't want to forcibly take the money of someone who is opposed to it though, right? So taxation isn't really the way to go here ...

Should I post this again?


I wouldn't mind paying taxes for....

forsmant
11-16-2008, 03:12 PM
Uhm...The Wealth of Nations was the first economics book written and gave birth to capitalism.

It is clear that you have never opened the book as it references economics books published in 1696, 1729, and many other books. These three books and essays are referenced in the first chapter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fable_of_the_Bees
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/consid.txt
http://www.archive.org/details/p1essayuponmoney00harruoft

The Industrial Revolution gave birth to capitalism. History is very expansive and public school did not devote much time to it. Therefore it was generalized and full of holes.

pcosmar
11-16-2008, 03:19 PM
How exactly could we have space exploration/moon landings without government?

A little known FACT for your consideration.

The first space ship was a private Company. The first American Astronaut was a test pilot.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/research/x15/x15_01.jpg

The "Space Program " was not about exploration, but as a show piece for Military hardware.
ICBM
Private exploration was forbidden until very recently, and in a short time with a fraction of the cost was successful.

The Facts speak for themselves.

mitty
11-16-2008, 03:21 PM
I'm anxious in being enlightened for this topic. I understand some quasi-space travel is going on privately, costing millions for individuals to take part in it, but how exactly would space travel work under privatization?? I mean, it's been almost 40 years since the government subsidized human landing on the moon...it's 2008 and we're just starting to get billionaires to fly a couple miles outside of our atmosphere. Who knows how long it will take for the private sector to adopt space travel to be as popular as going to Europe or Australia for vacation, but it seems as if it's very, very far off. Wasn't NASA a good thing??

a good portion of the technology that the free market exapnds upon today came from federal dollars especially NASA and the military. hell, even videogames came about because of military spending. while i'm not saying we owe a debt to the federal government, a lot of people seem to forget that the free market never developed the technology free market advocates celebrate as the miracle of the free market.

newyearsrevolution08
11-16-2008, 03:32 PM
Should I post this again?

That is the point, if it were privatized then they would need INVESTORS. If it is ran by our shitty government then all they need is tax payer dollars and as many as they might need. No accountability and what about those who could CARE LESS about what is out there. Why should that person have to toss money towards a program he or she doesn't believe in or care to fund?

Don't cut the program itself but cut the government out of the program and get rid of the secrecy behind it. The only need for secrecy is because of weapons or surveillance or something else. I doubt we would keep a "new planet" secret but we would keep a satellite secret or a weapons test and so on.

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 03:36 PM
The American mail system is a monopoly still, as it is currently illegal for any of their main competitors - FedEx, UPs, Roadway, etc - to offer first class mail service.

It's Constitutional. Get over it.

Kludge
11-16-2008, 03:37 PM
It's Constitutional. Get over it.

Constitutional =/= ethical.

powerofreason
11-16-2008, 03:39 PM
It's Constitutional. Get over it.

That doesn't make it RIGHT you idiot

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 03:46 PM
That is the point, if it were privatized then they would need INVESTORS. If it is ran by our shitty government then all they need is tax payer dollars and as many as they might need. No accountability and what about those who could CARE LESS about what is out there. Why should that person have to toss money towards a program he or she doesn't believe in or care to fund?

Don't cut the program itself but cut the government out of the program and get rid of the secrecy behind it. The only need for secrecy is because of weapons or surveillance or something else. I doubt we would keep a "new planet" secret but we would keep a satellite secret or a weapons test and so on.

Dude, how in the hell can you expect to live in a country where you agree with EVERYTHING the government does? How the fuck does a government please 300+ million people? Do we have annual questionnaires seeing what kind of tax should be placed upon you if any? Do you people live in reality? Have you read the Constitution? Congress has the power to levy taxes. Does it say anywhere that you have to agree with it?? NO! That's why you ELECT the people who agree with your anti-tax policies, or you can drag your ass into the courthouse and RUN for office.

It's funny, you all most likely hate democracies and support a republic or anarchy (which is just moronic), yet you say you should have a voice in determining whether or not taxes should be collected on you for certain programs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that democracy itself??? Where everybody's voice is equal, where everybody gets to choose what they want?? Quit bitching about taxes, I'm really tired of it. I understand if you're against the income tax and want lower taxes--I'm with yah--but to post crap saying 'You can't tax me if I don't agree with it' is complete bullshit. You elect representatives that align themselves with your beliefs. If neither candidate espouses your platform, then here's an idea, RUN FOR OFFICE!

You anti-tax people are absolutely unbelievable. It's funny because most of you support a Republic, yet your explanation for not having taxes levied upon you suggests nothing less than Democracy. Hypocritical, moronic, and very unenlightening. I know you're trying to explore this supposedly intellectual and revolutionary view of government, but you just look like an idiot in the process. Move to Somalia if you don't want to be taxed and see how great it is.

Danke
11-16-2008, 03:49 PM
It's Constitutional. Get over it.

Then why didn't you say that in the first place, instead of:

What the fuck are you talking about?

Looks like showing you were wrong is "what the fuck" I was talking about.


A great example of privatization of a government function is the postal service. ...

The private sector has proven to utterly suck balls at postal services.


THE

UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

OF THE

LAWS OF CONGRESS,

PROHIBITING

PRIVATE MAILS (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/PrivateMail.htm).

BY LYSANDER SPOONER

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 03:51 PM
That doesn't make it RIGHT you idiot

Then amend it or run for office you idiot.

Perhaps you haven't noticed: This is Ron Paul Forums. Ron Paul ran supporting the Constitution. It's funny because my original question surrounding NASA received responses saying "It's unconstitutional" as if implying everything not mentioned in the Constitution is wrong. So now I'm confused with your moronic statement--if it's stated in the Constitution it's not right?? So you're espousing something Ron Paul never supported. He likes the Constitution. Now you're saying it's not right to support it yet simultaneously criticizing my post by saying NASA is unconstitutional?

Seems like the bailout argument. It's evil unless I'm getting a cut. The Constitution only applies to YOU when YOU think it's right. You disagree with NASA and because it's not in the Constitution, it's unconstitutional. You disagree with taxes and because it is in the Constitution, you think it's not right. Unfuckingbelievable.

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 03:56 PM
Nah, in addition now to being DEAD, the US Constitution WAS pretty much WRONG all of the time.

Kludge
11-16-2008, 03:56 PM
Then amend it or run for office you idiot.

:rolleyes: According to the SCOTUS, the gov't can do whatever they want so long as it involves commerce. Thus, the gov't could, under the current interpretation of the Constitution, nationalize every business in America.

Pretty sure we don't need to amend the Constitution to know that the bill should be voted against.

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 03:57 PM
Then why didn't you say that in the first place, instead of:


Looks like showing you were wrong is "what the fuck" I was talking about.




THE

UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

OF THE

LAWS OF CONGRESS,

PROHIBITING

PRIVATE MAILS (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/PrivateMail.htm).

BY LYSANDER SPOONER

Ben Franklin liked the federal postal service. It's specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I'll side with the Founders before I listen to whatever L. Spooner has to say. I've read plenty of Rockwell saying private roads would be good--as if hundreds of thousands of American companies across the nation would spontaneously add building roads into its capital goods industry. It's complete bullshit and would take us back to riding horses. There's no way in hell anyone would voluntarily build roads and maintain them if it meant saving only $0.18/gallon. The roads in the colonies sucked balls big time which is why we had that specifically enumerated in it for Congress to "post roads".

What you guys are suggesting is privatization of roads and postal services even though it's spelled out in the Constitution for the government to do. So exactly why are you people posting in a Ron Paul Message Board??? Shouldn't you be over at anarchyforums.com?? I mean you guys don't even support things that have been in the Constitution since it was written!!

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 03:58 PM
Nah, in addition now to being DEAD, the US Constitution WAS pretty much WRONG all of the time.

Okay, move to Somalia if you like volunteerism and no government and no taxes. Tell me how yah like it :)

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 04:00 PM
Pretty much! :D

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html (http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html)

Kludge
11-16-2008, 04:01 PM
I mean you guys don't even support things that have been in the Constitution since it was written!!

It's silly to think that all Ron Paul supporters must be Constitutionalists. Ron Paul's a libertarian-leaning conservative. Naturally, libertarians are going to be attracted to him, whether they support his views on the Constitution or not.

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 04:02 PM
Okay, move to Somalia if you like volunteerism and no government and no taxes. Tell me how yah like it :) Nah, I have sovereignty and seniority. Move the D.C. scumbags to Somalia. :p :rolleyes: They can have the UN too. :D

Danke
11-16-2008, 04:04 PM
Ben Franklin liked the federal postal service. It's specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I'll side with the Founders before I listen to whatever L. Spooner has to say. I've read plenty of Rockwell saying private roads would be good--as if hundreds of thousands of American companies across the nation would spontaneously add building roads into its capital goods industry. It's complete bullshit and would take us back to riding horses. There's no way in hell anyone would voluntarily build roads and maintain them if it meant saving only $0.18/gallon. The roads in the colonies sucked balls big time which is why we had that specifically enumerated in it for Congress to "post roads".

What you guys are suggesting is privatization of roads and postal services even though it's spelled out in the Constitution for the government to do. So exactly why are you people posting in a Ron Paul Message Board??? Shouldn't you be over at anarchyforums.com?? I mean you guys don't even support things that have been in the Constitution since it was written!!

Are you saying just because something is provided for in the Constitution, that bars competitive private enterprise?

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 04:08 PM
It's silly to think that all Ron Paul supporters must be Constitutionalists. Ron Paul's a libertarian-leaning conservative. Naturally, libertarians are going to be attracted to him, whether they support his views on the Constitution or not.

But you're not a libertarian. You're an anarchist. You don't want to be taxed unless you agree with what the tax is for, you don't support federal postal services, I'm assuming you probably don't agree with federal roads, so what exactly do you agree with? Should we even have a military? If not, then fuck it I'm not going to waste time converting another anarchist. You guys are a dime a dozen and use absolutely zero real-world logic. It's all theoretical bullshit that has never worked in history. NEVER! The Founders didn't even give anarchy a thought, even the most radical libertarian ones.

Again, quit only quoting a sentence of my points at a time because that's the only part you can debate rather than the entire reply. Instead, go move to Somalia for a week where there are no federal roads, there is no federal postal service, there is no military, and it's complete anarchy. Tell me how great it is to live without a government.

You too Truth Warrior. Go live in that utopia. Hell, you don't even need to move there. I mean, we have a real world anarchy example for you anarchists to look at in Somalia, yet you still spout theoretical bullshit. Unbelievable!! You're stuck in a land of Oz, you're delusional, and are a waste of protoplasm.

Danke
11-16-2008, 04:08 PM
You disagree with taxes and because it is in the Constitution, you think it's not right. Unfuckingbelievable.

:confused:

I don't think you have a grasp about what the Constitution says about taxation.

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 04:10 PM
Nah, I have sovereignty and seniority. Move the D.C. scumbags to Somalia. :p :rolleyes:

Cute. So would you agree Somalia is a shithole??? They have anarchy there and according to your theories, that should be the best system ever imagined!! In fact, it shouldn't even be a "system" because everyone is voluntarily choosing to do what they want. No police force, they just have warlords running around stoning 13 year olds to death while 1,000+ people watch because she was raped and that's considering adultery. There's your anarchy "state".

Kludge
11-16-2008, 04:12 PM
But you're not a libertarian. You're an anarchist.

Nope. Try again. BTW, the most radical form of libertarianism is anarchism.

socialize_me
11-16-2008, 04:13 PM
:confused:

I don't think you have a grasp about what the Constitution says about taxation.


Congress may levy taxes. I don't think you have a grasp what the Constitution says about taxation. I've read it many times and cannot recall anywhere that is says you have to agree with taxes to be valid. The Constitution states a republican government shall be guaranteed to all states. We have a republican government. What you are suggesting is democracy where you should choose and determine how things should be done regardless of what our representatives say.

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 04:14 PM
You're an Anarchist (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html)
Me too, says Butler Shaffer. So are all civilized men, in practice. ( Barbarian STATISTS need not apply.) :D

Danke
11-16-2008, 04:15 PM
You guys are a dime a dozen and use absolutely zero real-world logic.

Well, there U definitely fail. Kludge is a lot of things, but a "dime a dozen." No. Can't be. Couldn't be. Shouldn't be. :eek:



Instead, go move to Somalia... I mean, we have a real world anarchy example for you anarchists to look at in Somalia...

What's with this fixation on Somalia?

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 04:18 PM
Cute. So would you agree Somalia is a shithole??? They have anarchy there and according to your theories, that should be the best system ever imagined!! In fact, it shouldn't even be a "system" because everyone is voluntarily choosing to do what they want. No police force, they just have warlords running around stoning 13 year olds to death while 1,000+ people watch because she was raped and that's considering adultery. There's your anarchy "state". Never been there. No desire to go. None of MY business. I'm a non-interventionist, like Ron. ;) Africa seems like a pretty BARBARIC place TOO, ALL in ALL. But then again, they haven't INVADED Iraq. :D

Danke
11-16-2008, 04:22 PM
Congress may levy taxes. I don't think you have a grasp what the Constitution says about taxation. I've read it many times and cannot recall anywhere that is says you have to agree with taxes to be valid.

Yes, congress can levy taxes. But under narrowly defined conditions. The reason the founders wrote it that way was to prevent exactly what you are advocating, uncontrolled spending. But along came the privately held Central Bank and years of deliberate misinformation about taxation, and that is exactly what we got. With additional support from people of your mindset.

But it will be coming to an end sooner than later. Just look at our ever increasing debt. The spending you so enjoy can't go on. We can't afford it.

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 04:24 PM
I wonder where the event horizon for that black hole begins.

heavenlyboy34
11-16-2008, 04:25 PM
Cute. So would you agree Somalia is a shithole??? They have anarchy there and according to your theories, that should be the best system ever imagined!! In fact, it shouldn't even be a "system" because everyone is voluntarily choosing to do what they want. No police force, they just have warlords running around stoning 13 year olds to death while 1,000+ people watch because she was raped and that's considering adultery. There's your anarchy "state".

Looks like they have a central government to me. Not exactly what I'd call "anarchy"...

http://www.infoplease.com/world/leaders/somalia.html
Somalia

Chiefs of State and Cabinet Members of Foreign Governments
Date of Information: 9/23/2008

Somalia has lacked any internationally recognized central government since the fall of the Siad Barre regime in 1991. The current Transitional Federal Government is the fifteenth attempt to create a formal state. The country is currently controlled by various political and regional factions as well as local warlords in the south and in two "republics" in the north. The former British colony of Somaliland---consisting of five districts in the northwest---declared independence in 1991, and the northeastern region---known as Puntland---declared autonomy in 1998.
Pres. Abdullahi YUSUF Ahmed Prime Min. Nur HASSAN Hussein Dep. Prime Min. SALIM Aliyow Ibrow Dep. Prime Min. Aydid Abdullahi Ilka HANAF Dep. Prime Min. Ahmad ABDISALAM Min. of Agriculture, Water, & Urban Development Mustafa Ali DHUHULOW Min. of Air & Land Transport Mohamed Ibrahim Mohamed HABSADE Min. of Defense MUHYADIN Muhammad Ali Ibrahim Min. of Education & Culture Aydid Abdullahi Ilka HANAF Min. of Finance & Planning Muhammad Ali HAMUD Min. of Foreign Affairs & Intl. Cooperation Ali Ahmed JAMA Jangeli Min. of Information & Youth Ahmad ABDISALAM Min. of Internal Affairs & National Security MUSE Nur Amin Min. of Justice & Religious Affairs SALIM Aliyow Ibrow Min. of Minerals & Energy Muhammad Ali SALAH Min. of Posts & Communications ABDI MOHAMED Tarrah Min. of Public Works & Construction Nur Idow BEYLE Min. of Regional Development, Federal Affairs, & Reconciliation ABDIRIZAL Ashkir Abdi Min. of Trade, Industry, & Tourism Hussein Elabe FAHIYE Min. of Gender Development & Family Affairs Khadija Muhammad DIRIYE Governor, Central Bank Permanent Representative to the UN, New York Elmi Ahmed DUALE

strapko
11-16-2008, 04:27 PM
Has law and governments ever protected the people from warlords, killings, robberies, rape? I think not.

MGreen
11-16-2008, 05:22 PM
Regarding Somalia: http://www.mises.org/story/2701

tremendoustie
11-16-2008, 05:34 PM
Should I post this again?

Ok, good :). Just making sure -- you used the word "tax" which is kind of loaded. I would choose to support some of these programs as well.

Danke
11-16-2008, 05:40 PM
Regarding Somalia: http://www.mises.org/story/2701

Yeah, but.


Well, they stone teenage girls there...

Us civilized folk kill much more humanely from long distances. Nuking over a hundred thousand at a time is much more civilized.

nbhadja
11-16-2008, 05:43 PM
Socialize me, you act like the postal service industry is free market when it is not free market. And then some poster tells you this correct statement which proves it is not anywhere close to a free market:

"The American mail system is a monopoly still, as it is currently illegal for any of their main competitors - FedEx, UPs, Roadway, etc - to offer first class mail service."

and you respond by saying "it is constitutional, get over it!"

How does that support your argument at all? It seems you are avoiding it.

AutoDas
11-16-2008, 06:04 PM
socialize_me, please tell me how did the Government in Somalia fall in the first place in order to let vying warlords compete for power?

ItsTime
11-16-2008, 06:06 PM
Are you kidding?? You realize how much innovation has come out of space travel?

Why do you need the Internet? That was formulated by government. Every time I see a bad website or blog, I think about how much of my grandparent's money went up in smoke.

Less than has come from WAR. So its clear we need more war.

mnewcomb
11-16-2008, 06:10 PM
I'm sure this has been covered, but Space is extremely valuable for national defense, weather monitoring, military communications... all of which I think can be argued under Constitutional authority... Perhaps not all the things NASA does, but general access to space I could see...

powerofreason
11-16-2008, 06:45 PM
Then amend it or run for office you idiot.


No. I have a natural right to be free and will work toward that goal in any way possible.

powerofreason
11-16-2008, 06:48 PM
Cute. So would you agree Somalia is a shithole??? They have anarchy there and according to your theories, that should be the best system ever imagined!! In fact, it shouldn't even be a "system" because everyone is voluntarily choosing to do what they want. No police force, they just have warlords running around stoning 13 year olds to death while 1,000+ people watch because she was raped and that's considering adultery. There's your anarchy "state".

Oh yea... about Somalia:

The Rule of Law Without the State
http://mises.org/story/2701

Stateless In Somalia And Loving It
http://blog.mises.org/archives/004712.asp

So STFU you uneducated violent statist motherfucker

Somalia is BETTER OFF without a state, and thats all I have to prove. Not that anarchy is some kind of utopia (like your communism) *hearty laugh*

powerofreason
11-16-2008, 06:53 PM
Then amend it or run for office you idiot.

Perhaps you haven't noticed: This is Ron Paul Forums. Ron Paul ran supporting the Constitution. It's funny because my original question surrounding NASA received responses saying "It's unconstitutional" as if implying everything not mentioned in the Constitution is wrong. So now I'm confused with your moronic statement--if it's stated in the Constitution it's not right?? So you're espousing something Ron Paul never supported. He likes the Constitution. Now you're saying it's not right to support it yet simultaneously criticizing my post by saying NASA is unconstitutional?

Seems like the bailout argument. It's evil unless I'm getting a cut. The Constitution only applies to YOU when YOU think it's right. You disagree with NASA and because it's not in the Constitution, it's unconstitutional. You disagree with taxes and because it is in the Constitution, you think it's not right. Unfuckingbelievable.

The Constitution is right when it respects my right to be free. I agree with the Constitution when it is right. Not so confusing, is it. I do agree that going back to a government such as the one described in the Constitution would be an enormous step in the right direction. Thats why I am a RP supporter. I thought this Lew Rockwell podcast (http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-11-13_067_are_you_an_anarchist.mp3) made a very good and an easy to understand argument for anarcho-capitalism if anyone here is unfamiliar with the concept.

muzzled dogg
11-16-2008, 06:56 PM
fuck nasa

forsmant
11-16-2008, 06:58 PM
No we need NASA to give the fucking nerds something to do while the rest of us build up civilization.

danberkeley
11-16-2008, 07:50 PM
Are you kidding?? You realize how much innovation has come out of space travel?

Why do you need the Internet? That was formulated by government. Every time I see a bad website or blog, I think about how much of my grandparent's money went up in smoke.

Oh. I had forgotten that Al Gore invented the internets. :rolleyes:

WRellim
11-16-2008, 08:09 PM
Are you kidding?? You realize how much innovation has come out of space travel?

Why do you need the Internet? That was formulated by government. Every time I see a bad website or blog, I think about how much of my grandparent's money went up in smoke.

Excuse me?

What innovation? Most of the things that people cite as innovation "resulting from" the space program were actually things PREVIOUSLY INVENTED (like Velcro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro) invented in 1941, and Tang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_%28drink%29) invented in 1957) that simply came to the attention of the media through NASA, and then got "cited" and "claimed" as being due to NASA when in fact they were nothing of the kind. NASA just "piggybacks" it's PR on people believing this stuff, and uses it to push for more funding.

Plus there is the "forgotten man" portion of that -- for all of the millions and billions wasted on NASA over the years, and all of the private efforts that were stymied and literally PREVENTED from occurring because of NASA -- we might actually be much, MUCH further along if there had been no "socialized space program."

Think of where Burt Rutan is now (basically a "private" version of the X15, simply better designed) -- then imagine where he could have been had there existed a "free enterprise" option for the past 50+ years, rather than the wasteful behemoth of NASA. (And go HERE to see what Rutan thinks of the current NASA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwfSENkvJXY).)

BTW, and I say all of the above as an old "Rocket Boy" myself.



Oh, and as far as the "internet" goes -- there was very little government in that soup. Yes, there was a very early DARPA project, but it pretty much sucked.

The internet and computing in general as we know it today owes a LOT more to the XEROX PARC research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_PARC#Accomplishments) (privately funded) and other 60's, 70's and 80's computing companies than it does to the US Government. (And the "Web" really owes its existence more to Steve Jobs' NeXT computing platform and what it's "Nextstep" programming system allowed Tim Berners Lee to create (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners_Lee#Inventing_the_World_Wide_Web) the first HTML web server & browser, than it does to the fact that CERN was paying for his sandwiches and rent at the time -- after all they had paid for his sandwiches and rent in several previous attempts at similar things {ENQUIRE, etc}, and he had failed at all of them -- the difference was that the NeXT system actually allowed him to produce something that worked).

So the next time you surf the web, don't thank Al Gore; thank Steve Jobs and his money-losing, "failed" computer company... NeXT.

danberkeley
11-16-2008, 08:32 PM
Letters are far less profitable for businesses to take on anyway compared to delivering freight and package orders.

Oh noes! It is be far less porfitables! I is guess no one would fill that market. :rolleyes:


But you're not a libertarian. You're an anarchist.

Thanks for proving that you have not fully read Rothbard.

sirachman
11-16-2008, 08:48 PM
Excuse me?

What innovation? Most of the things that people cite as innovation "resulting from" the space program were actually things PREVIOUSLY INVENTED (like Velcro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro) invented in 1941, and Tang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_%28drink%29) invented in 1957) that simply came to the attention of the media through NASA, and then got "cited" and "claimed" as being due to NASA when in fact they were nothing of the kind. NASA just "piggybacks" it's PR on people believing this stuff, and uses it to push for more funding.

Plus there is the "forgotten man" portion of that -- for all of the millions and billions wasted on NASA over the years, and all of the private efforts that were stymied and literally PREVENTED from occurring because of NASA -- we might actually be much, MUCH further along if there had been no "socialized space program."

Think of where Burt Rutan is now (basically a "private" version of the X15, simply better designed) -- then imagine where he could have been had there existed a "free enterprise" option for the past 50+ years, rather than the wasteful behemoth of NASA. (And go HERE to see what Rutan thinks of the current NASA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwfSENkvJXY).)

BTW, and I say all of the above as an old "Rocket Boy" myself.



Oh, and as far as the "internet" goes -- there was very little government in that soup. Yes, there was a very early DARPA project, but it pretty much sucked.

The internet and computing in general as we know it today owes a LOT more to the XEROX PARC research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_PARC#Accomplishments) (privately funded) and other 60's, 70's and 80's computing companies than it does to the US Government. (And the "Web" really owes its existence more to Steve Jobs' NeXT computing platform and what it's "Nextstep" programming system allowed Tim Berners Lee to create (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners_Lee#Inventing_the_World_Wide_Web) the first HTML web server & browser, than it does to the fact that CERN was paying for his sandwiches and rent at the time -- after all they had paid for his sandwiches and rent in several previous attempts at similar things {ENQUIRE, etc}, and he had failed at all of them -- the difference was that the NeXT system actually allowed him to produce something that worked).

So the next time you surf the web, don't thank Al Gore; thank Steve Jobs and his money-losing, "failed" computer company... NeXT.

Lol you have to be kidding, spaceshipone by virgin galactic only goes to suborbital space. The X15 was meant to go to orbital. Do you even understand the difference? Well its MASSIVE to let you know.

sirachman
11-16-2008, 08:50 PM
You dont know what you are talking about. There is a massive difference in the money and expertise needed to make a orbital rocket and to make a home-made airplane. There are trillions of dollars worth of metals in space, millions of times the amount of fuel that is on earth, tons of space to populate.. People that say space is not worth it, or that we should concentrate on earth first simply haven't taken the time to do any research. Saying we shouldnt get involved in space makes less sense than saying there is no point in getting out of the womb. We are but a tiny speck in a near-infinite sea of wonders. At the very very least we need to be involved in space for the purposes of learning how to defend humanity. One below average size asteroid coming our way would wipe us out and right now we dont even have a clue what is out there in terms of asteroids because we have searched less than 1 percent of the sky for them thouroughly plus even if we found one we would have absolutely no way of stopping it and no the movie stuff wouldn't work.
I could talk for hours about the reasons we cant "work on earth first".. We could do that for ever as long as something didnt wipe us out. There are no definate fixes for the earths problems, and many of the things which can help will be discovered in space. There are asteroids with more metal than the entire crust of the earth nearer to us than the moon. Hell this planet is going to have 9 billion people soon and unless you believe the end times are coming you need to realize that humans will be around for more than a hundred or so more years. In merely a 100 years there wont be enough food and space for people. If you think pollution and the environment are being effected at all now they will be gone by that time.
Anyways this could go on for thousands of pages, but the point is that the destiny of humanity is to expand into space just as we colonized all of the continents and the best way to preserve the wonders on earth other than ourselves is to conquer the dangers in space and to create backups of what is here elsewhere because all you need is one massive plague, nuclear war, asteroid, super volcano, etc and we are all dead. Thats not even considering the extra benefits but just the safety benefits. Hell didnt you ever hear dont put all your eggs in one basket? Well earth is the basket, and all known life is the eggs. But I guess the dinosaurs never existed and thus nothing wiped them out since the earth is only a few thousand years old and God is protecting us...

I do think govt should only do research/exploration missions, and that private industry shouldn't have to pay taxes on space related projects and that if people vote on a certain super expensive thing they want to happen that money should be collected by the federal government and then the task should be accomplished by private industry by prizes and such. Also everything the government does should be completely open source. But for the amount of money it costs, there is no reason to end nasa it has done more for humanity than anything else in the last thousand years but as a govt entity of course they are very money inefficient and it could be run better.

For the guy going on about people dying... thats just unbelievable less people have died in space related accidents than die on one passenger plane crash so thats just stupid talk. If you dont like spending money on space then shut off your cell phone, turn off your tv, dont use gps, dont use solar, the list is looong...

AutoDas
11-16-2008, 08:56 PM
The Nazis invented the rocket propulsion that we use today. We should fund Nazis!

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 09:04 PM
Content of the Universe

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/UniversePie75.jpg

sirachman
11-16-2008, 09:12 PM
Content of the Universe

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/UniversePie75.jpg

So what is 4% of infinity again? lol

Danke
11-16-2008, 09:14 PM
Lol you have to be kidding, spaceshipone by virgin galactic only goes to suborbital space. The X15 was meant to go to orbital. Do you even understand the difference? Well its MASSIVE to let you know.

The X15B was planned to go orbital. But was can canceled.

Danke
11-16-2008, 09:20 PM
You dont know what you are talking about. There is a massive difference in the money and expertise needed to make a orbital rocket and to make a home-made airplane. There are trillions of dollars worth of metals in space, millions of times the amount of fuel that is on earth, tons of space to populate.. People that say space is not worth it, or that we should concentrate on earth first simply haven't taken the time to do any research. Saying we shouldnt get involved in space makes less sense than saying there is no point in getting out of the womb. We are but a tiny speck in a near-infinite sea of wonders. At the very very least we need to be involved in space for the purposes of learning how to defend humanity. One below average size asteroid coming our way would wipe us out and right now we dont even have a clue what is out there in terms of asteroids because we have searched less than 1 percent of the sky for them thouroughly plus even if we found one we would have absolutely no way of stopping it and no the movie stuff wouldn't work.
I could talk for hours about the reasons we cant "work on earth first".. We could do that for ever as long as something didnt wipe us out. There are no definate fixes for the earths problems, and many of the things which can help will be discovered in space. There are asteroids with more metal than the entire crust of the earth nearer to us than the moon. Hell this planet is going to have 9 billion people soon and unless you believe the end times are coming you need to realize that humans will be around for more than a hundred or so more years. In merely a 100 years there wont be enough food and space for people. If you think pollution and the environment are being effected at all now they will be gone by that time.
Anyways this could go on for thousands of pages, but the point is that the destiny of humanity is to expand into space just as we colonized all of the continents and the best way to preserve the wonders on earth other than ourselves is to conquer the dangers in space and to create backups of what is here elsewhere because all you need is one massive plague, nuclear war, asteroid, super volcano, etc and we are all dead. Thats not even considering the extra benefits but just the safety benefits. Hell didnt you ever hear dont put all your eggs in one basket? Well earth is the basket, and all known life is the eggs. But I guess the dinosaurs never existed and thus nothing wiped them out since the earth is only a few thousand years old and God is protecting us...

I do think govt should only do research/exploration missions, and that private industry shouldn't have to pay taxes on space related projects and that if people vote on a certain super expensive thing they want to happen that money should be collected by the federal government and then the task should be accomplished by private industry by prizes and such. Also everything the government does should be completely open source. But for the amount of money it costs, there is no reason to end nasa it has done more for humanity than anything else in the last thousand years but as a govt entity of course they are very money inefficient and it could be run better.

For the guy going on about people dying... thats just unbelievable less people have died in space related accidents than die on one passenger plane crash so thats just stupid talk. If you dont like spending money on space then shut off your cell phone, turn off your tv, dont use gps, dont use solar, the list is looong...

Fine. You pay for it.

And as a side point. Talking about deaths. What are the percentages (take off and landings), not the total numbers? Yeah, it is much safer to get on a commercial aircraft than a spacecraft.

sirachman
11-16-2008, 09:21 PM
The X15B was planned to go orbital. But was can canceled. I realize that, I was merely pointing out that the comparison was invalid. Its like comparing a pair of running shoes to a stealth bomber..

danberkeley
11-16-2008, 09:21 PM
Content of the Universe

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/UniversePie75.jpg

What is the difference between "dark energy" and "dark matter"?

sirachman
11-16-2008, 09:22 PM
What is the difference between "dark energy" and "dark matter"?

They are entirely unrelated.

Dark matter is an as yet unknown substance. We call it dark because it does not interact with the electromagnetic force, or light, and therefore is invisible. Dark matter does have mass, and does exert its gravitational force on regular matter. Years ago, physicists were looking for an explanation as to why spiral galaxies, which should fly apart as its arms swirl around the center, remain intact. Something with great mass surrounding the galaxies seems to hold the spiral arms in place, otherwise they would fling billions of stars into space. So dark matter emerged as the best theory. Contraversy remains as to whether this is actually a new kind of matter, or the effects of gravity at large scales.

Dark energy is believed to be the force of the expansion of the universe. This is vacuum energy, the force that tends to push objects away from each other. This force was confirmed in the famous Casimir expirement in 1948. Dark energy acts as an anti-gravity force, pushing the large galactic clusters further apart as it expands the size of the voids between them.

danberkeley
11-16-2008, 09:29 PM
They are entirely unrelated.

Dark matter is an as yet unknown substance. We call it dark because it does not interact with the electromagnetic force, or light, and therefore is invisible. Dark matter does have mass, and does exert its gravitational force on regular matter. Years ago, physicists were looking for an explanation as to why spiral galaxies, which should fly apart as its arms swirl around the center, remain intact. Something with great mass surrounding the galaxies seems to hold the spiral arms in place, otherwise they would fling billions of stars into space. So dark matter emerged as the best theory. Contraversy remains as to whether this is actually a new kind of matter, or the effects of gravity at large scales.

Dark energy is believed to be the force of the expansion of the universe. This is vacuum energy, the force that tends to push objects away from each other. This force was confirmed in the famous Casimir expirement in 1948. Dark energy acts as an anti-gravity force, pushing the large galactic clusters further apart as it expands the size of the voids between them.

:confused: I see

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 09:29 PM
So what is 4% of infinity again? lol "Infinity" is only a meaningful concept in mathematics. :rolleyes: Everything we know of in REALITY is finite. ;)

Of that 4% being atoms, ~95% of it is hydrogen. Pretty BORING.<IMHO>

danberkeley
11-16-2008, 09:39 PM
"Infinity" is only a meaningful concept in mathematics. :rolleyes: Everything we know of in REALITY is finite. ;)

Of that 4% being atoms, ~95% of it is hydrogen. Pretty BORING.<IMHO>

Good thing hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas. :D

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 09:46 PM
What is the difference between "dark energy" and "dark matter"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dark%20energy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dark%20energy)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dark%20matter (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dark%20matter)

sirachman
11-16-2008, 09:49 PM
"Infinity" is only a meaningful concept in mathematics. :rolleyes: Everything we know of in REALITY is finite. ;)

Of that 4% being atoms, ~95% of it is hydrogen. Pretty BORING.<IMHO>

If you figure in the speed of the universes expansion and the laws of physics restricting motion of solid bodies to less than the speed of light then it is impossible to explore the entire universe before it grows larger. I guess you also dont comprehend the scales you are dealing with. Accepting your figures as correct that would mean that .2 percent of the universe is "other that hydrogen" not to mention the fact that in chemistry you would learn that hydrogen is involved in just a few other chemical compounds. This is also counting all the space between galaxies stars and planets which is vastly enormous. Discounting that, even if this was ONLY counting entire galaxies there are hundreds of billions of them. In only the observable universe there are many more than 125 billion-500 billion. If we say that that is 125 billion then there are .25 BILLION galaxies worth of elements other than hydrogen in just those galaxies and thats also if as I said we pretend those percentages dotn apply to all the empty space. Do you realize the enormity of that? Yes i agree it is finite, but its infinite for all intents and purposes humanity could ever need. There is nothing boring about that.

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 09:49 PM
Good thing hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas. :D On Earth, the most powerful, prevalent and predominant "greenhouse gas" is atmospheric water vapor. :rolleyes:

sirachman
11-16-2008, 09:50 PM
:confused: I see

?? What part of that explanation do you not understand, instead of replying with that how about you ask some questions?

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 09:53 PM
If you figure in the speed of the universes expansion and the laws of physics restricting motion of solid bodies to less than the speed of light then it is impossible to explore the entire universe before it grows larger. I guess you also dont comprehend the scales you are dealing with. Accepting your figures as correct that would mean that .2 percent of the universe it "other that hydrogen" not to mention the fact that in chemistry you would learn that hydrogen is involved in just a few other chemical compounds. This is also counting all the space between galaxies stars and planets which is vastly enormous. Discounting that, even if this was ONLY counting entire galaxies there are hundreds of billions of them. In only the observable universe there are many more than 125 billion-500 billion. If we say that that is 125 billion then there are .25 BILLION galaxies worth of elements other than hydrogen in just those galaxies and thats also if as I said we pretend those percentages dotn apply to all the empty space. Do you realize the enormity of that? Yes i agree it is finite, but its infinite for all intents and purposes humanity could ever need. There is nothing boring about that. You may just want to argue that with the WMAP data and scientists. ;)

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

sirachman
11-16-2008, 09:54 PM
You may just want to argue that with the WMAP data and scientists. ;)

It is accurate, try actually discounting something specific and I will cite sources.

Revolution9
11-16-2008, 09:56 PM
Yeah, what would I do without Tang, space blankets and freeze dried food?!?!

Perhaps read several books.

HTH
Randy

sirachman
11-16-2008, 09:56 PM
This thread makes me cry

Revolution9
11-16-2008, 09:59 PM
Oh yeah, NASA solar panel designs have solved our energy needs, silly me.

Wow.. Yer just a whizbang bundle of curious intellectuality. I will bet you get your hamburgers from cows struck by lightning while you wallow naked in the hollow of the woods.

Randy

sirachman
11-16-2008, 10:00 PM
Wow.. Yer just a whizbang bundle of curious intellectuality. I will bet you get your hamburgers from cows struck by lightning while you wallow naked in the hollow of the woods.

Randy

and laugh

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 10:00 PM
It is accurate, try actually discounting something specific and I will cite sources. Why? Are we competing? :rolleyes:

danberkeley
11-16-2008, 10:02 PM
On Earth, the most powerful, prevalent and predominant "greenhouse gas" is atmospheric water vapor. :rolleyes:

Hope the environmentalists dont know about it. The might ban it. :D

sirachman
11-16-2008, 10:05 PM
Why? Are we competing? :rolleyes:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m114/sylviaviridian/macros/Cat%20Macros/FACEPALM.jpg

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 10:05 PM
Hope the environmentalists dont know about it. The might ban it. :D Nah, just tax it. :p :rolleyes: Mother Nature would NOT be amused.<IMHO> :D

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 10:08 PM
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m114/sylviaviridian/macros/Cat%20Macros/FACEPALM.jpg

Does the term "sequitur" have any meaning for you? :D

Danke
11-16-2008, 10:09 PM
Wow.. Yer just a whizbang bundle of curious intellectuality. I will bet you get your hamburgers from cows struck by lightning while you wallow naked in the hollow of the woods.

Randy

You can do better than that Randy. I mean look at all the trillions we have spent on the military industrial complex. Mankind is so much further advancement because of it, just look at our miraculous economy. Debt, no problem. Silly talk. Free markets sucks. USA! USA! USA!

sirachman
11-16-2008, 10:11 PM
Does the term "sequiter" have any meaning for you? :D
I bet you meant "sequitur", and yes I am aware of its definition.

sirachman
11-16-2008, 10:12 PM
lol nice edit.

Revolution9
11-16-2008, 10:13 PM
The only possible loophole that I can imagine would be the national defense aspect.

Yes. And THERE ARE alien platform in orbit currently. I think defense of the people is mandated. What is that sound I hear?? Must be the conspiracy theorist bashers brains steaming up and the pressure valves near to releasing.. Effiing aliens!!

NASA is military. There are manned weapons platforms in space. The hacker McKinnon is getting railroaded for finding this out. The show for you kiddies of plants growing in space is just a show. The hulls of the latest subs which keep a barrier between the skin and water leading to silent and rapid underwater propulsion systems are manufactured only in space. It ain't the only thing. Silicon semiconductor substrates with exotic doping are manufactured there for near perfect crystal growing. The list goes on and on. But hey.. Let's pass up this and go back to steampunk so we can absorb and pollute with hundreds of times more materials. Read Fullers essays on ephemeralisation to get a fucking grip or STFU if ya aint got a brain to conjugate facts and scientific trends with, which includes 99% of the shit spouters on this thread who have zilch in correlative intellectual capacity.

What we should be asking for is some transparency in what they are really up to.. But with the neanderthal mindset of some on this thread I can understand how the NASA establishment can see they would get nothing but puzzled looks and a war of the worlds viral mentality coupled to ridicule from idiots who think this is all there is.

If ya think a private company will protect you from space weapons platforms then I suggest giving blackwater a call. They would get totally testosteronated to acquire public money to build a space platform with their logo on it. Do not believe private enterprise is all goody two shoes.

HTH
Randy

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 10:15 PM
I bet you meant "sequitur", and yes I am aware of its definition. Yeah, I corrected the typo. :rolleyes: < YAWN! >

sirachman
11-16-2008, 10:17 PM
Does the term "sequitur" have any meaning for you? :D

I cant read your mind but from what I think you were trying to say, I think you meant to say non-sequitur seeing as sequitur means "A logical conclusion or consequence of facts." but thats just directly from the dictionary so I guess it could be wrong.. lol

sirachman
11-16-2008, 10:21 PM
Buut anyways, this thread has turned quite juvenile. Seeing as my attempts at intelligent discussion and debate are being met with responses which contain the equivalent of "omfg uz be a liar" I think I am about done. Insulting back and forth over the internet is entertaining, but its not the best way to spend time.

Revolution9
11-16-2008, 10:22 PM
You can do better than that Randy. I mean look at all the trillions we have spent on the military industrial complex. Mankind is so much further advancement because of it, just look at our miraculous economy. Debt, no problem. Silly talk. Free markets sucks. USA! USA! USA!

Just started.. My longer screed can be found by refreshing the thread, which you will have done already if yer reading this.

All I demand is some goddamned intelligence and not this knee jerk amurikan armchair quarterback debunker mentality where a whole philosophical stance is considered to be a smart alec one liner with no proper basis in fact. That is called _fail_ when yer IQ gets into 3 digits. Though it never fails to impress the bud swilling, cheesefood slurping halfwit sports fan with its erudite and simplistic idiocy.

There are some nasty things in this Universe. A look at UFO abduction history shows they, at least some factions of "they" have no respect for us. The Greys figure heavy in The Society of Thule and the Thules figure heavy in the Nazi formation. Just one of many timeline driven connect the dots.

Randy

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 10:25 PM
Buut anyways, this thread has turned quite juvenile. Seeing as my attempts at intelligent discussion and debate are being met with responses which contain the equivalent of "omfg uz be a liar" I think I am about done. Insulting back and forth over the internet is entertaining, but its not the best way to spend time. Nice "intelligent" feline facepalm pic there. :D

Danke
11-16-2008, 10:28 PM
There are some nasty things in this Universe. A look at UFO abduction history shows they, at least some factions of "they" have no respect for us. The Greys figure heavy in The Society of Thule and the Thules figure heavy in the Nazi formation. Just one of many timeline driven connect the dots.

Randy

You are a piece of work, no doubt. Those buggers in Air Force Intelligence never briefed me with me even with my TS. I was training to fight the wrong enemy all those years. Frickin NWO conspirators!!

sirachman
11-16-2008, 10:31 PM
Nice "intelligent" feline facepalm pic there. :D
Using comedy to point out the ridiculousness of your reply does not reflect a lack of intelligence, or so think I.

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 10:34 PM
Using comedy to point out the ridiculousness of your reply does not reflect a lack of intelligence, or so think I. I just asked a couple of very simple questions. Your response was juvenile, or so think I. :D

Revolution9
11-16-2008, 10:38 PM
You are a piece of work, no doubt. Those buggers in Air Force Intelligence never briefed me with me even with my TS. I was training to fight the wrong enemy all those years. Frickin NWO conspirators!!

Well lookie here. The standard drivelesque debunker comes spewing forth with a diatribe indicating the shallowness of his reading cirriculum. And you have the temerity to attempt a swat at me. Heh,. I already addressed clowns like you in a previous missive to this thread.

http://www.rense.com/ufo/battleofla.htm

And since you spout some kind of security clearance as a bogified credential I ask you to explain these images
http://www.rense.com/Datapages/mystmachinedata.htm

There are lots and lots of them.. Go for it clown.. Though I expect nothing more out of you than further droolings and dribblings in an attempt to shore up your superior debunker status to little avail.

Bemused
Randy

sirachman
11-16-2008, 10:39 PM
I just asked a couple of very simple questions. Your response was juvenile, or so think I. :D

Lol, edited the reply in question eh? Yep, thats completely mature.
Anyways.
Discussion over, you win +100 epeen! Congrats :D

Truth Warrior
11-16-2008, 10:44 PM
Lol, edited the reply in question eh? Yep, thats completely mature.
Anyways.
Discussion over, you win +100 epeen! Congrats :D I just caught it before I read your correction. DUH!!! :rolleyes:

Why? WERE we competing? :D

heavenlyboy34
11-16-2008, 10:50 PM
I'm anxious in being enlightened for this topic. I understand some quasi-space travel is going on privately, costing millions for individuals to take part in it, but how exactly would space travel work under privatization?? I mean, it's been almost 40 years since the government subsidized human landing on the moon...it's 2008 and we're just starting to get billionaires to fly a couple miles outside of our atmosphere. Who knows how long it will take for the private sector to adopt space travel to be as popular as going to Europe or Australia for vacation, but it seems as if it's very, very far off. Wasn't NASA a good thing??

One word: TANG! :D

Danke
11-16-2008, 10:56 PM
Well lookie here. The standard drivelesque debunker comes spewing forth with a diatribe indicating the shallowness of his reading cirriculum.

You really assume a lot, don't you. Yeah, I just discovered the Internet yesterday.



And you have the temerity to attempt a swat at me. Heh,. I already addressed clowns like you in a previous missive to this thread.



Yep, proof enough for me.



And since you spout some kind of security clearance as a bogified credential I ask you to explain these images
http://www.rense.com/Datapages/mystmachinedata.htm

There are lots and lots of them.. Go for it clown.. Though I expect nothing more out of you than further droolings and dribblings in an attempt to shore up your superior debunker status to little avail.

Bemused
Randy

Bemused is on my part, really.

Which branch of the military did you serve in? Do you really think you have any idea of what you are talking about. I served with many in black projects. What you are linking to in nonsense. But proving the negative is not a game I wish to engage in. Be on your merry way and believe anything you wish. I'm in the battle based on reality. Tangible things like government spending and waste. But if you want to support trillions of dollars in some mystical alien defense, do it on your own dime. Voluntarily. Thanks.

hypnagogue
11-16-2008, 11:00 PM
They can deliver packages, freight, and envelopes, just not letters. Letters are far less profitable for businesses to take on anyway compared to delivering freight and package orders. FedEx makes most of it's money from shipping documents. They are by far more profitable than bulk freight. I know this. I work there.

As for UPS and FedEx getting beaten up, that's nothing more than a natural result of the current economic conditions. They'll make it through. FedEx, while having to work hard to cut costs, is still profitable. DHL has failed, however. More work for us at FedEx, if you ask me.

Although I have to wonder why you think that the USPS is more efficient than FedEx. I'd love to see a comparison of their operating costs in relation to their shipping. Of course the USPS is "cheaper." You pay for it twice; tax and use.

Maybe someone already commented on this. I haven't read through the whole thread.

EDIT: Just finished reading this thread. WTF people...

AdamT
11-16-2008, 11:01 PM
NASA is just a cover for the real space program. To keep people thinking mankind is only at such in such a level of technological achievement - such as needing rockets and shuttles to get into space. Which in turn allows all the black ops projects to run wild, and not have to give humanity any of their mind blowing secret technology. Like free energy for example.

Danke
11-16-2008, 11:05 PM
NASA is just a cover for the real space program. To keep people thinking mankind is only at such in such a level of technological achievement - such as needing rockets and shuttles to get into space. Which in turn allows all the black ops projects to run wild, and not have to give humanity any of their mind blowing secret technology. Like free energy for example.

And alien suppression, don't forget that important aspect!

There is a dosey of a post brewing, I can just sense it.

heavenlyboy34
11-16-2008, 11:08 PM
NASA is just a cover for the real space program. To keep people thinking mankind is only at such in such a level of technological achievement - such as needing rockets and shuttles to get into space. Which in turn allows all the black ops projects to run wild, and not have to give humanity any of their mind blowing secret technology. Like free energy for example.

:eek: I knew it!

Revolution9
11-16-2008, 11:25 PM
You really assume a lot, don't you. Yeah, I just discovered the Internet yesterday.



Yep, proof enough for me.



Bemused is on my part, really.

Which branch of the military did you serve in? Do you really think you have any idea of what you are talking about. I served with many in black projects. What you are linking to in nonsense. But proving the negative is not a game I wish to engage in. Be on your merry way and believe anything you wish. I'm in the battle based on reality. Tangible things like government spending and waste. But if you want to support trillions of dollars in some mystical alien defense, do it on your own dime. Voluntarily. Thanks.


Debunko the clown attempts another blow and the roundabout lands squarely on his own military _trained_ chin flooring him to the RP forum mat. Typical roundabout drivel. You provided nothing but some hackneyed walleyed ego trip and purported that to be sufficient to forestall my impression of you as an uniformed fool. Your military training..read _training_..serves you so well. You were a mere flunky and pretend to be a black ops particpant. If you were your training would let you know your family and friends were just put under the gun for admissions of such..if you actually were.. Try again clown.. just how do you explain the Watson videos? They ain't commsats.

<taps foot awaiting another dump of drivel from some unread or non-comprehending clown on the internets>


Randy

Danke
11-16-2008, 11:34 PM
Debunko the clown attempts another blow and the roundabout lands squarely on his own military _trained_ chin flooring him to the RP forum mat. Typical roundabout drivel. You provided nothing but some hackneyed walleyed ego trip and purported that to be sufficient to forestall my impression of you as an uniformed fool. Your military training..read _training_..serves you so well. You were a mere flunky and pretend to be a black ops particpant. If you were your training would let you know your family and friends were just put under the gun for admissions of such..if you actually were.. Try again clown.. just how do you explain the Watson videos? They ain't commsats.

<taps foot awaiting another dump of drivel from some unread or non-comprehending clown on the internets>


Randy


http://home.comcast.net/~pusher01/clapping.gif

Doesn't really address anything brought up in this thread, does it? We enjoyed your slam on obvious trolls that come along (but since it was obvious, we really didn't need your somewhat amusing posts), but here you are way out of your League. Run along now.

Danke
11-16-2008, 11:55 PM
Another wordsmithing post is brewing, I can sense it.

Kludge
11-16-2008, 11:59 PM
:eek:

Danke
11-17-2008, 12:28 AM
Another wordsmithing post is brewing, I can sense it.

I guess my senses are failing me.

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/runaway.wav


http://www.bellasrelics.com/monty_python-rabbit2.jpg

Revolution9
11-17-2008, 12:41 AM
http://home.comcast.net/~pusher01/clapping.gif

Doesn't really address anything brought up in this thread, does it? We enjoyed your slam on obvious trolls that come along (but since it was obvious, we really didn't need your somewhat amusing posts), but here you are way out of your League. Run along now.

Sure it does. The post that brought it up originally was the one that stated that space exploration, vehicle building, magnetic shielding against cosmic rays, sustenance of a human being in a closed outer space environment, recycling of waste in this closed environment.. etc..were part of the purview of National defense. When someone is abducted that is kidnapping, under federal jurisdiction, and could be considered an act of espionage as well.. When bogeys enter our airspace unidentified and do so with total disregard for what we consider advanced weaponry and planes then that again falls under the purview of National Defense. To ignore these things, which are well documented falls under the purview of complete blinkered idiocy. Perhaps military budgets should not have so many exploding bombs but focus more on advanced energetics tech and non commodity depletion weapons tech. Every bomb we explode cuts down the amount of scrap metal we can put to productive use.

BTW.. Yer pre-emptive rabbit BS was trigger happied onto here seeming to think I was glued to your reply, which was simply more of the same with a kinder and gentler tone..then ya thought you had some nads..which were yours actually, by the short and curlies and posted yer silly wabbit pic.. The facts still remain you cannot debate your way through or out of this and the only weapon in your arsenal of rhetoric is your pea shooter of dismissal.

Answer this clown.. What is it that Watson is videographing? Are they ours or theirs and which theirs if they ain't ours?

Randy

torchbearer
11-17-2008, 12:45 AM
http://blogs.redding.com/mbeauchamp/archives/Tang.gif
any questions?

Highland
11-17-2008, 12:52 AM
Why do we need to travel into space? Every time I see a space shuttle launch (or explode), I think about how much of my money is going up in smoke... Scrap NASA.

because it helps us micronize our technology here on earth....I hope you like your lappy and PC.....thank NASA when you pray over those cornflakes!

torchbearer
11-17-2008, 01:01 AM
because it helps us micronize our technology here on earth....I hope you like your lappy and PC.....thank NASA when you pray over those cornflakes!

Nasa has an active education program when I was younger.
They had people visit our school and stuff.. it was very cool.
They told us NASA didn't keep secrets and shared its patents. Is this true? And if not, why not?

WRellim
11-17-2008, 01:06 AM
Lol you have to be kidding, spaceshipone by virgin galactic only goes to suborbital space. The X15 was meant to go to orbital. Do you even understand the difference? Well its MASSIVE to let you know.

Well, to begin with "SpaceShipOne" was not a "Virgin Galactic" project, but rather a project by Scaled Composites and funded Paul Allen's group. Branson and his Virgin group did not get involved until well over a year AFTER the successful flights.

So you get an "F" for that.

And as others have mentioned X15 was in fact (like Rutan's "SpaceShipOne") only capable of sub-orbital flight; and the X15B (which would NOT have been launched from B52 but rather was planned to be a top stage aboard a modified Navaho missile -- was in fact canceled before development got much beyond the early planning stages).

You get a second "F" for that as well.

As to the fact that suborbital and orbital are of significant difference, YES the flight paths are different, but the difference is really more one of degree, rather than nature. For example the first manned Mercury flights, Freedom 7 and Liberty Bell 7 -- launched atop the ABMA develope Redstone missles -- were suborbital; but the later Mercury manned flights, Friendship, Aurora, Sigma and Faith 7 -- launched atop the Atlas boosters -- were orbital; the major difference being in the total thrust available from the booster and thus the altitude and speed that the capsules could reach; but the inherent design and functional principles of both the booster systems were very similar, AND the capsules were virtually identical. In other words, there is LESS difference between a suborbital and orbital system, than there is between say a propeller driven aircraft and a jet aircraft.

At best, we can grade you with a "D-" on this one.

Your total grade so far... slightly above "F".

So, rather obviously YOU are not as familiar with this subject as you pretend to be... but go ahead and BS some more. Maybe you can take the NASA "brute-force" approach and just throw tons of words at everyone.

WRellim
11-17-2008, 01:24 AM
One word: TANG! :D


http://blogs.redding.com/mbeauchamp/archives/Tang.gif
any questions?


Ummm... as has already been mentioned, "Tang" -- just like a host of other innovations that people erroneously attribute to NASA -- was merely "popularized" by them.

In point of fact, Tang (and Velcro, and even Integrated Circuit chips) were all developed privately, and entirely independent of NASA, which was just a "purchaser" of later versions of these products.

So for NASA to take credit for any of these is the equivalent of the local print shops taking credit for "innovating" the Laser Printer because they happened to buy one of the first Apple Laserwriter models; such a claim would be both ridiculous and facetious.

But NASA has no sense of shame. (Why would it? It's a government bureaucracy that is always in search of more taxpayer funds...)

torchbearer
11-17-2008, 01:31 AM
Ummm... as has already been mentioned, "Tang" -- just like a host of other innovations that people erroneously attribute to NASA -- was merely "popularized" by them.

In point of fact, Tang (and Velcro, and even Integrated Circuit chips) were all developed privately, and entirely independent of NASA, which was just a "purchaser" of later versions of these products.

So for NASA to take credit for any of these is the equivalent of the local print shops taking credit for "innovating" the Laser Printer because they happened to buy one of the first Apple Laserwriter models; such a claim would be both ridiculous and facetious.

But NASA has no sense of shame. (Why would it? It's a government bureaucracy that is always in search of more taxpayer funds...)

It was meant to be humor.
I'm sure the government contract for Tang helped the private company get it out to the public.
Though, I'm not even certain astronauts even used the stuff.
DO they still make it? I haven't had seen it or drank it in 25 years.

WRellim
11-17-2008, 01:43 AM
Nasa has an active education program when I was younger.
They had people visit our school and stuff.. it was very cool.
They told us NASA didn't keep secrets and shared its patents. Is this true? And if not, why not?

Actually, what NASA had was a PR program that went around to captive (and sometimes voluntary) audiences of impressionable people... where they spouted all kinds of BS about how all of their "innovations" had helped mankind. (Reality is a bit different from NASA PR -- see Tang, Velcro & Integrated Circuits discussed above).

There was very little about NASA's program that would truly qualify it as "educational" -- it was more in the vein of the flash & bang "experiments" done by science teachers to "excite" their students. Such things make a lot of smoke and noise, and perhaps even make an impression on students -- but they have all of the value of a "Diet Coke & Mentos" video -- and sadly, they teach virtually NOTHING about science.

As to NASA being supposedly "generous" with it's patents -- basically they LIED about that one as well.

The reality is that majority of any "innovations" that occur are in fact designed at and patented by private contractors. But, unfortunately, in the remaining cases, where NASA employed engineers do design something new, NASA itself DOES take out patents, and recently (in an attempt to gain funds, albeit a measly amount that probably didn't even cover the legal costs) auctioned off the rights to many of them. (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/07/nasa-patent-auction.html)

(Now, since NASA is a taxpayer funded government institution it is sometimes argued that technically they should not even be eligible for patents, and that if they ARE issued regardless, then such inventions should be in the public domain since the public has already paid for their development; and should not have to pay yet another "premium" for products based on them.)

WRellim
11-17-2008, 01:52 AM
It was meant to be humor.

Yeah, I figured your (picture) post was... it's just that it's a blatant lie that never seems to die. (One of many that I was fed as a kid... and which pissed me off further when I found out the truth).


I'm sure the government contract for Tang helped the private company get it out to the public.Actually from my understanding, it was the opposite. More like "product placement" -- the company that made Tang (General Foods?) agreed to donate a bunch of it if they could claim "used by the Astronauts" in their advertising; and as NASA was all about "building hype" and free PR, they agreed.


Though, I'm not even certain astronauts even used the stuff.

As far as I know, they didn't. Nor did they actually eat the "food stick" things that were sold at around the same time with similar claims.


DO they still make it? I haven't had seen it or drank it in 25 years.You mean other than as pre-sweetened Kool-Aid? Yes, you can still buy it, but you have to hunt for it... I think it's marketed as a "sports drink" nowadays -- and they gave up all of the BS about astronauts drinking it.


BTW the same guy who invented "Tang" also invented the "Pop-Rocks" candy -- I'm surprised he didn't try to sell them as "moon-rocks" (!?!?) -- then NASA could claim yet another "taste-sensation" as an innovation; they could probably even use it as a reason why we need to go back to the moon and get more rocks -- otherwise the children of the future might be deprived. ("Someone think of the children!!!")
:D

werdd
11-17-2008, 06:13 AM
I guess the private sector would have to propagandize fake moon landings to make the people believe they are actually accomplishing something.

jyakulis
11-17-2008, 06:33 AM
yeah and look at all the technologies the government has helped repressed and then tell me about some of the great technologies they've created.

i do like the space program though. satellites are pretty handy.

PaulineDisciple
11-17-2008, 06:41 AM
It's unconstitutional, space travel is not a function of government. Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of all individuals, and the right not to have our money stolen from us for any other purpose than to secure these rights should not even be entertained for a second. IOW, about 90 percent or more of what our government currently does should be considered theft.

Truth Warrior
11-17-2008, 07:02 AM
"The thought of how far the human race [might] have advanced without government simply staggers the imagination." -Attributed to Doug Casey, 1979

Truth Warrior
11-17-2008, 07:19 AM
"The more subsidized it is, the less free it is. What is known as "free education" is the least free of all, for it is a state-owned institution; it is socialized education - just like socialized medicine or the socialized post office - and cannot possibly be separated from political control." -- Frank Chodorov

Elwar
11-17-2008, 07:40 AM
Again...NASA has defense department implications, Satellites, missile defense, etc...all very Constitutional in providing for the defense of our country.

That's why Ron Paul voted for NASA funding.

Danke
11-17-2008, 10:54 AM
When someone is abducted that is kidnapping, under federal jurisdiction

http://internetservices.readingeagle.com/editor/archives/mars-attacks.jpg



To ignore these things, which are well documented falls under the purview of complete blinkered idiocy.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/whatson/sites/bfi.org.uk.whatson/files/images/mars_attacks.jpg



BTW.. Yer pre-emptive rabbit BS was trigger happied onto here seeming to think I was glued to your reply


No assclown, you were continually replying with ad hominems without addressing any thing about what was being addressed; out of control spending on the military. And then you brought in Aliens as a reason to support NASA'a budget. To many fiction books I guess. Up the meds and go get help.

jbuttell
11-17-2008, 12:02 PM
Dude, how in the hell can you expect to live in a country where you agree with EVERYTHING the government does? How the fuck does a government please 300+ million people? Do we have annual questionnaires seeing what kind of tax should be placed upon you if any? Do you people live in reality? Have you read the Constitution? Congress has the power to levy taxes. Does it say anywhere that you have to agree with it?? NO! That's why you ELECT the people who agree with your anti-tax policies, or you can drag your ass into the courthouse and RUN for office.

It's funny, you all most likely hate democracies and support a republic or anarchy (which is just moronic), yet you say you should have a voice in determining whether or not taxes should be collected on you for certain programs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that democracy itself??? Where everybody's voice is equal, where everybody gets to choose what they want?? Quit bitching about taxes, I'm really tired of it. I understand if you're against the income tax and want lower taxes--I'm with yah--but to post crap saying 'You can't tax me if I don't agree with it' is complete bullshit. You elect representatives that align themselves with your beliefs. If neither candidate espouses your platform, then here's an idea, RUN FOR OFFICE!

You anti-tax people are absolutely unbelievable. It's funny because most of you support a Republic, yet your explanation for not having taxes levied upon you suggests nothing less than Democracy. Hypocritical, moronic, and very unenlightening. I know you're trying to explore this supposedly intellectual and revolutionary view of government, but you just look like an idiot in the process. Move to Somalia if you don't want to be taxed and see how great it is.

Wow, Sorry Socialize_me, you've absolutely lost my attention now. You're picking a fight with the wrong people. "Anti-Tax" people? I have no idea why you're even here and supposedly supporting Ron Paul.

Yes, I'm very Anti-tax, specifically the Income Tax. Take it away and let's see how much money the government has left over to 'spend' on space projects unrelated to national defense. Oh right, they'll just tap into the fed and give us more inflationary tax.

Quit bitching about taxes...? So long as the government is collecting such large quantity of money from the people, it'll continue to grow in it's corruption. And please - give the Somalia reference a break, its really tired.

So long as the government can come to my house with armed police to demand taxes on my wages, I will speak against their efforts. Its wrong, no matter how you try to justfiy it.

Truth Warrior
11-17-2008, 12:05 PM
Aggression is Wrong (http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/aggression.php), by Robert LeFevre

Andrew-Austin
11-17-2008, 12:24 PM
So long as the government can come to my house with armed police to demand taxes on my wages, I will speak against their efforts. Its wrong, no matter how you try to justfiy it.

But... but.. the founders! They surely would have been for tax funded space travel!

Drknows
11-17-2008, 12:36 PM
Yes, I knew Virgin was doing this, but none of it would have been accomplished without prior government models. The private sector did not just jump right in and start designing this stuff--they've waited 40+ years for the government to test, design, and launch the programs and research. Had the Government not have done anything with space, none of these companies would have such programs. This is evidence enough that even with privatization, some tasks are simply too large without government performing them like the military and space travel.

Damn why are you in such a hurry? This is why the Chinese will out pace us in the future. One of their monetary policy guys said it best when talking about becoming the worlds reserve currency.... it will be "more like the gentle flow of a river than the big waves of the ocean"

At the rate we spend money the Chinese will be putting our Mars Exploration Rovers in a space museum.



Also Do you think its ok to take money from that waiter who can barely get by just so you can see pretty pictures of mars?

Do you think we spend enough on space exploration? Should we spend more so we can move ahead faster? How about you donate your whole paycheck? Im sure if we spent our whole budget on space we could send trillions more into a black hole. Most of that technology we spent billions on is already out dated.

Yes some parts of the space program are useful but the private sector is moving faster everyday. Also amateur astronomers have technology that takes pictures just as good as hubble does now.

i wish i could find the site but this one guy is awesome. he has software that corrects the distortion from the atmosphere and you cant even tell his photos apart from hubble's.

Truth Warrior
11-17-2008, 12:42 PM
I can do that too. Just copy Hubble pictures and call them mine. Not rocket science, to merely coin a phrase. :D

RevolutionSD
11-17-2008, 01:15 PM
I'm anxious in being enlightened for this topic. I understand some quasi-space travel is going on privately, costing millions for individuals to take part in it, but how exactly would space travel work under privatization?? I mean, it's been almost 40 years since the government subsidized human landing on the moon...it's 2008 and we're just starting to get billionaires to fly a couple miles outside of our atmosphere. Who knows how long it will take for the private sector to adopt space travel to be as popular as going to Europe or Australia for vacation, but it seems as if it's very, very far off. Wasn't NASA a good thing??

Richard Branson is doing space travel in the private sector. Government HINDERS space exploration if anything.

Forget about needing government for anything. It's a stupid idea that does not work no matter how many examples people come up with where we somehow "need" authoritarian sociopaths to point guns at people in order to get things done.

Revolution9
11-17-2008, 01:30 PM
No assclown, you were continually replying with ad hominems without addressing any thing about what was being addressed; out of control spending on the military. And then you brought in Aliens as a reason to support NASA'a budget. To many fiction books I guess. Up the meds and go get help.

Typical 101 level response. You have still failed mightily to explain the Watson videos. If they ain't our they are somebody's. If they are somebody's besides ours then i suggest that they constitute a grave national defense threat and have to be dealt with as far as determining where they come from. I suggest you get your dollar store binoculars out and futz with you CB radio to see if you can get a lock on them.

I don;t read fiction. I get my news from government reports from South American countries, police reports and disclosures such as that recently released by the French government. I presume you count the fu flier reports from USAF pilots alot of bogus crap from clowns who read too much scifi.. Which..if you do shows precisely where your miniscule mindset get generated from. I am not impressed with your lack of knowledge rhetoric.

hth
Randy

powerofreason
11-17-2008, 03:37 PM
Where'd you go socialize_me? The truth must've scared your commie ass off eh?

constituent
11-17-2008, 06:13 PM
who cares?

free.alive
11-17-2008, 06:22 PM
I don't have the link, but even statist Gingrich could conceive of defunding NASA and turning the reins over to the market.

BagOfEyebrows
11-17-2008, 06:29 PM
Actually, what NASA had was a PR program that went around to captive (and sometimes voluntary) audiences of impressionable people... where they spouted all kinds of BS about how all of their "innovations" had helped mankind. (Reality is a bit different from NASA PR -- see Tang, Velcro & Integrated Circuits discussed above).

There was very little about NASA's program that would truly qualify it as "educational" -- it was more in the vein of the flash & bang "experiments" done by science teachers to "excite" their students. Such things make a lot of smoke and noise, and perhaps even make an impression on students -- but they have all of the value of a "Diet Coke & Mentos" video -- and sadly, they teach virtually NOTHING about science.

As to NASA being supposedly "generous" with it's patents -- basically they LIED about that one as well.

The reality is that majority of any "innovations" that occur are in fact designed at and patented by private contractors. But, unfortunately, in the remaining cases, where NASA employed engineers do design something new, NASA itself DOES take out patents, and recently (in an attempt to gain funds, albeit a measly amount that probably didn't even cover the legal costs) auctioned off the rights to many of them. (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/07/nasa-patent-auction.html)

(Now, since NASA is a taxpayer funded government institution it is sometimes argued that technically they should not even be eligible for patents, and that if they ARE issued regardless, then such inventions should be in the public domain since the public has already paid for their development; and should not have to pay yet another "premium" for products based on them.)

excellent post.

Bodhi
11-17-2008, 06:42 PM
Why does this thread now only have one star? It is a valid question.

jbuttell
11-17-2008, 07:21 PM
Why does this thread now only have one star? It is a valid question.

Yes, the question was fair - the subsequent arguments were less interesting.