How do austrians come to accept that many major inventions and leaps in technology in the last 50 years have been made by the government or military? I mean the development of computers, satellites and the internet have all been funded by governments.
If this wasn't the case, do you think the market would have developed these technologies? Do you think we would be as advanced technologically as we are today if they weren't funded by the government?
I mean, how long would it have taken to put a satellite in orbit around the earth if there wasn't a space race? It may have been decades later. Are you now going to argue that government is always bad, when these examples clearly prove it isn't?
The Bomb19:but what incentive would there have been for a firm to initially develop space travel? All that research is far too costly. It needed the government to do it.
Clearly.
Similarly, what incentive would there have been for the private sector to have developed computers initially? These projects would maybe have generated long term revenue i.e. 40 years down the line, but a company which is only interested in short term profits would not have developed the computer in the 1940s or 1950s.
So let me get this straight...your assertion is that a company in the 1940s or 50s wouldn't be able to make any money from investments in computing technology until the 1980s or 90s. Is that what you're suggesting? I'd like to be clear.
Why would a firm have built the first satellite or sent a man to the moon? They wouldn't, because there is no profit to be made. Think about all the inventions and advances in technology that would therefore have been missed. How does the market respond to this?
Again, I want to be clear. You're asserting that inventions and advances in technology that there is a demand for only exist because money was forcibly taken from people to do things that (according to you) there wasn't a demand for?
In other words, you're claiming that there was no profit to be made in building satellite technology or visiting the moon...which by definiton means there is a lack of demand...which in turn means the resources put into it are not worth the value returned. That's the definiton of "loss"...which is the opposite of "profit". Your assertion is that doing those things (developing satellites and going to the moon) would have resulted in a loss for a private company...which again, by definition means those things are undesired uses of resources by the market. So you're basically saying "it's a good thing a small group of elites used the threat of force to take money from everyone to finance this project that the people didn't want, because otherwise it wouldn't have gotten done."
My question to you is, why does the will of the elite few take precidence over the will of everyone else? Why should everyone be forced to pay for something they clearly (i.e. demonstrably) don't want? I would be interested to hear your moral justification for this.
I suppose you might refer back to the unspecified "inventions and advances in technology" that supposedly came about as a result of this theft. But again I would ask you, if those things are so valuable...if those things are so in demand, what makes you think they wouldn't have been invented? You just got through saying money had to be forcibly taken to finance space travel, because otherwise it wouldn't have happened because it would be unprofitable (again, I'd love to see any proof of that claim)...but even taking your position and assuming space travel is something the market didn't want, you're claiming these "inventions and advances in technology" that came out of it are things people did want...as in they are profitable. So, why exactly would something that is profitable not be pursued?
Austrian economics has nothing to do with good or bad.
Regardless,
The Bomb19:I mean, how long would it have taken to put a satellite in orbit around the earth if there wasn't a space race? It may have been decades later. Are you now going to argue that government is always bad, when these examples clearly prove it isn't?
Some people think they are good. Some people think they are bad. Who wins?
I don't understand your point. There was demand from the military for this technology, and in the long run it has benefited everyone. How could there have been public demand for a product not yet invented, and when 99.999% of the population had yet to hear of such a device?
You're trying to approach this from a moral point of view, probably because you realise that if there were no governmentr then this technology would not have been developed so quickly. So once again, in the absence of government, why would the private sector have developed satellites and invested so heavily in computers during WW2 and the Cold war?
Under what circumstances would you have seen the invention of the internet occurring without CERN? How many lost decades would we have had before the internet was invented? In fact, why did the private sector not invent such a communication earlier?
Firstly: This seems predominantly a question for anarchists, given that minarchists do not oppose the existence of a military and thus would have no quarrel with the benefits that research in that field brings.
Secondly: In response to your point regarding demand for nonexistant goods, why should government officials have any greater knowledge in anticipating public demand than the public itself, especially given the impossibly of true interpersonal cardinal-utility comparison? And how do you explain the private invention, development and distribution of the airplane and automobile? Were all such inventions copied from golden alien apples?
No, they probably wouldn't have invested in them during the Cold War. They would have invested when it wasn't a major money sink and when it would actually benefit mankind, instead of being used to spy on Russians.
Also the internet wasn't a complex invention, LAN already existed and communication between computers was already happening on a fairly large scale before the arpanet was invented. I have no question government can do things "big", they can waste a lot of money on things before they're economically possible for the private sector.
That doesn't mean the internet never would have been invented nor anything else. Read my flying car analogy. Of course the government can sink gigantic amounts of money into research while others can't, most especially because it won't mean any future profits. No profits mean nobody will buy it which in effect means it's useless for the general public and only stands to serve the government at that particular time.
The time between the arpanet and the internet was the time required for it to become economically possible to provide such a service.
Also, I'm a computer programmer. I know how computers work. The internet wasn't some unthoughtof thing that was unable to be accomplished, it was too expensive to develop at that time and the invention of arpanet didn't change that.
Likewise space travel isn't something nobody is thinking of right now, they know they can do it - eventually. The government has the luxury of completely wasting money that private entities do not have. Space travel would have happened in any scenario - government involvement or not.
You are correct that the only aspect of R&D that we realy see from the government, comes from its $100 billion's military spending. But the American military is not responsible for many inventions.
http://www.lowvarates.com/va-loan-blog/tag/top-10-military-inventions/
What is an invention that no one uses? It is only when a private organization takes the jet engine and makes it available that it becomes useful. But people might say the military invented these products but that is not entirely correct.
1) Scientists around the world were already working on the invention of atomic energy before the military took an interest in its military application and due to the use military application the government ended up putting tight restrictions on its development. So it definitely was not a good thing that America has endless tax money to throw at the development of nuclear weapons.
2) http://www.vat19.com/brain-candy/accidental-inventions-ether-anesthesia.cfm
3) http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa050298.htm / http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm
4) the internet was invented by the RAND corporation and the first implementations of the network were at universities, not military bases. The military was very interested in the idea for its own purposes. But the involvement was not key to the invention.
5) Rand corporation (which is apparently a non-profit R&D arm of the us government dating back 60 years) was involved in the development of the first satellite.
6) http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/Penicillin.htm (technically not invented by the military)
7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber (technically not invented by the military)
8)
In 1935 Hans von Ohain started work on a similar design in Germany, apparently unaware of Whittle's work.[7] His first device was strictly experimental and could only run under external power, but he was able to demonstrate the basic concept. Ohain was then introduced to Ernst Heinkel, one of the larger aircraft industrialists of the day, who immediately saw the promise of the design. Heinkel had recently purchased the Hirth engine company, and Ohain and his master machinist Max Hahn were set up there as a new division of the Hirth company. They had their first HeS 1 centrifugal engine running by September 1937. Unlike Whittle's design, Ohain used hydrogen as fuel, supplied under external pressure. Their subsequent designs culminated in the gasoline-fuelled HeS 3 of 1,100 lbf (5 kN), which was fitted to Heinkel's simple and compact He 178 airframe and flown by Erich Warsitz in the early morning of August 27, 1939, from Rostock-Marienehe aerodrome, an impressively short time for development. The He 178 was the world's first jet plane.
9) After being rejected by the government "HOLLAND found sponsorship with the Fenians, a group of Irish revolutionaries, looking for a way to harass the British Navy. He built a small prototype submarine, "Holland No. 1" to test out his theories – including the use of a gasoline engine. The trial was successful enough to encourage building a larger, more warlike, boat." http://www.submarine-history.com/NOVAtwo.htm
10) Pepto-Bismol was invented in 1901 by a doctor in New York. It was originally sold as a remedy for infant diarrhea by Norwich Pharmacal Company under the name Bismosal: Mixture Cholera Infantum, changing to Pepto-Bismol in 1919, and transferring to Procter and Gamble with their 1982 acquisition of Norwich Eaton Pharmaceuticals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepto-Bismol
The rand corporation does in fact lay claim to the invention of the computer and the internet and satellites. But as other people have said if there was a market for those inventions then they would have been produced. Can you point out at any specific inventions that you think would never have been invented if the government was not spending its tax money through corporations like RAND? I am against unnecessary wars and massive government military spending. So even if out of the $100 billions of military spending, we do end up with some useful inventions, I still would not say that the world is better off because of that or that the rubber or GPS on my phone is worth all the destruction and wasteful spending that is the military.
The Bomb19: I don't understand your point. There was demand from the military for this technology, and in the long run it has benefited everyone. How could there have been public demand for a product not yet invented, and when 99.999% of the population had yet to hear of such a device? You're trying to approach this from a moral point of view, probably because you realise that if there were no governmentr then this technology would not have been developed so quickly. So once again, in the absence of government, why would the private sector have developed satellites and invested so heavily in computers during WW2 and the Cold war? Under what circumstances would you have seen the invention of the internet occurring without CERN? How many lost decades would we have had before the internet was invented? In fact, why did the private sector not invent such a communication earlier?
I assume you're talking to me. (If you'd like to see how to quote, click here. It will help you be able to cleanly address specific statements).
And to address your assumption, no, I most certainly have no problem debunking your claim from a utilitarian perspective either. I just feel the moral one is more important. (Would you torture a baby if it meant you could save the lives of 10 people? From a utilitarian perspective, your answer should be yes.)
First of all, I'm still waiting to see any of this evidence that proves "if there were no governmentr then this technology would not have been developed so quickly." You have made claims like this many times now and have offered absolutely zero emprical support for them. And second, if you would at least attempt to answer a couple of my questions you wouldn't have to ask me yours. But let's spell out the premises you're operating under:
1) Satellites and computers are a good thing.
2) The overall total investment in satellites and computers was worth the result we've gotten.
3) There is no possible way that a company in the 1940s or 50s could make any money from investments in computing technology until the 1980s or 90s.
4) Because of #3, those investments wouldn't have taken place.
5) Therefore, it is a good thing that war took place, because it allowed a small group of elites the opportunity to justify forcibly taking ever more resources from the rest of the population to finance the development of technology to more efficiently wage war.
6) And out of war, technology was developed that has been adapted for purposes other than killing people, and that makes us better off.
There are many problems with this. As mentioned above, first and foremost, you have offered absolutely no support for the claim that all of this stuff wouldn't exist if not for government. Second, you have offered no evidence to even suggest a company would not be able to see a return from investments in technology for 40 years. (Frankly it sounds like you just pulled that out of the air.) Third, aside from assuming war is the only reason these things exist, you seem to be automatically assuming their existence was worth the price. For someone who wishes to analyze from a utlitarian perspective, I would love to not only hear the data you are using to run this cost-benefit analysis, but I would also be very interested to hear by what metric you're determining your result. So please, share exactly how you have calculated the utility of satellites and technology versus the utility of the lives lost, the property destroyed, and the productive capacity lost due do those things. Not to mention the personal, emotional impact.
Next, we have to recognize the overall implication you are making...namely that a small political elite knows better about what the people want and need, than the people do themselves. Because of course that is the overall argument you're making. You're essentially saying the market is wrong...the people don't know any better. They don't realize that satellites and computers would be good for them, because if they did, it would be profitable to invest in them. So because these ignorant rubes don't know what's good for them it's a good thing the elites were there to enroll agents to take their money by force so that it can be put to a proper use...as, if people were allow to spend their own money, it would be squandered on something less useful. (And of course "useful" implies "as determined by the elites").
So basically your argument is that a small group of people knows more about what everyone needs than everyone does themselves. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, I'm wondering how exactly this small group is able to make that calculation.
And finally, since you made your assumption about me, I'll make one of my own: "You keep dodging questions and asking new ones, and keep trying to focus on a utilitarian point of view, probably because you realize you have no response to the moral question, and you think the utilitarian argument is in your favor." So I respectfully ask you, to please address the questions I've asked you. I have been courteous enough to answer yours.
1) Why does the will of the elite few take precidence over the will of everyone else? Why should everyone be forced to pay for something they clearly (i.e. demonstrably) don't want?
2) Where is your proof that these things would not have been invented?
3) Where is your support for your claim that a company would not be able to see a return from investments in technology for 40 years?
4) What data did you use to run your cost-benefit analysis of satellites and computing technology vs. the effects of war?
5) What metric did you use to make that calculation?
6) What makes you think a small group of people can know more about what an entire population wants and needs, than the population does itself?