Arguing with this dude that has no confidence in the free-market when it comes to scientific R&D, particularly in regards to space science.
"The 'space program' has been almost entirely government funded for nearly half a century. Only in the last few years, since cell phones and satellite communications has 'private capital' gotten interested. Because of government programs we have discovered the fantastic economic potential of lunar mining. The moon could supply virtually the entire worlds raw mineral needs plus things like hydrogen three for fusion. Fusion offers virtually unlimited energy to the world and yet there is little if any private capital going into fusion reactors. Still at the UN arguments are going on over laws concerning private and national ownership of lunar resources, because some folks are well aware of the fantastic profit potentials.
If the capital that is now invested in things that offer quick returns were invested in the development of commercial space transport, we'd have commercial space transport much sooner. Many if not most of the things that drive international conflict and poverty on Earth would be eliminated by commercial use of extraterrestrial resources. That's where the worlds capital should be going...but its not. You may be horrified but its my opinion that ways should be found to direct capital into a more rapid development of those things that are needed to to get to and exploit the resources and technology that are vital to the maintenance of peace on earth. In short 'Draft capital not troops'."
Ask him why he thinks the ends justify the means.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Ask whay no entrepreneurs go into these projects? I can think of two reasons: 1. Why pay venture capitalists when you get the money from the government for free and go bankrupt there by stealing all the money. 2. The government has crowded out other entrepreneurs. Why start project A when another company gets billions from the government for doing the same thing.
Your friend is pretending the theoretical is fact and using a negative to prove a positive. In theory we can do anything.
Your friend wants to seize the assets of other people to further his own vison of what the world should look like. There was a pretty well known guy by the name of Adolf who had a similar idea. Adolf put a lot of money in to research too. His scientist developed some pretty cool technology for the early space and rocket program. Adolf also invested a lot of other peoples assets into medical and psycological research.
Hey, TronCat, I suggest that before you get into debates you read up some libertarian literature. You have an insane amount of questions, and you cannot possibly have enough time between posts to read up on each topic that you asked about just 10 hours ago. I don't mean to be mean, I mean to be realistic. It doesn't seem like you're getting very far.
"Insane" amount of questions? How many questions have I asked? Like three or something? All you guys give me is articles anyway, so I could very well just refer him to those.
On another note-
Your friend is basically saying he doesn't like the notion of a free market because he doesn't believe that it would have led to outcomes that he wouldn't prefer over the historical outcomes. Does he have any reasoning or evidence to support that belief? The burden of proof (or at least explanation) is on him.