1. The internet. (The government & Tim Berners-Lee.)2. Penicillin. “Florey believed it would be inappropriate to patent penicillin, but learned his lesson when some of his American collaborators did just that… Florey took no profit for himself.”— http://time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,33700,00.html3. The computer - “This came from pure scientific thought, and not at all from an economic need for computing. Business and profit-making played no part in it.”— http://turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/machine.html4. AC power & modern electricity. (Tesla)“Money does not represent such a value as men have placed upon it. All my money has been invested into experiments with which I have made new discoveries enabling mankind to have a little easier life.”— http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla“Yet Tesla died destitute.”—http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Nikola_Tesla.htm5. Phone. “Meucci was recognized as the first inventor of the telephone by the US House.” “[He] was unable to raise sufficient funds to pay for the patent application… In 1861 his cottage was auctioned.”—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci6. Lightbulb. “Göbel [invented] the first practical bulb… in 1854, a quarter of a century before Edison’s patent.”—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_G%C3%B6belYes he died pennyless too.7. Radio. “Tesla is now credited with inventing modern radio as well; since the Supreme Court overturned Marconi’s patent in 1943 in favor of Tesla’s earlier patents.”—http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Nikola_Tesla.htm8. Almost everything else - through state funding of science, medicine, & university research.The point? While we all love for-profit economics, let’s not exaggerate their role either. At best they tend to succeed after government acceleration of new technologies.from http://newsrogue.com/list-the-worlds-best-inventions-werent-made-for-profit/Guys, no one is denying that profit improves products, we're just asking for a little honesty. Yes profit motive leads to cheaper & better products... but creativity, altruism, & government had a big role too.Ford didn't invent the car, he invented the cheap car. The Wright brothers didn't invent the first airplane, they invented the first good airplane. (the "three axis-control" method.)In other words, liberals don't "hate markets" or "worship Marx" - we love our laptops & our porn - but please don't exaggerate, & please don't simplify reality.
You are clearly out of your element here. If you are implying that inventions/innovations aren't procuced by individuals/groups operating out of self-interest, then you need to re-examine your beliefs.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Alright but who invented sliced bread?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Why does any of this matter?
You surely don't want to take profits from anyone who does enjoy them, right?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Question: who cares? What was the point of this thread?
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Question: who cares? What was the point of this thread? -Jon
Exactly. In addition, even if something is invented by someone who cares more about fame and attention than money, profit-seekers always improve upon it.
Jon Irenicus:Question: who cares?
Lol, I should have asked myself this before I took the time to read through the whole thing at post a comment.
mr_anonymous: "If you are implying that inventions/innovations aren't procuced by individuals/groups operating out of self-interest, then you need to re-examine your beliefs. "
It wasn't me who implied that, it was the inventors themselves:
“This came from pure scientific thought, and not at all from an economic need for computing. Business and profit-making played no part in it.”— http://turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/machine.html
“Florey believed it would be inappropriate to patent penicillin, but learned his lesson when some of his American collaborators did just that… Florey took no profit for himself.”— http://time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,33700,00.html
Ego: "You surely don't want to take profits from anyone who does enjoy them, right?"
Obviously no one said that. Hint: 99% of debating conservatives is explaining what you didn't say. It's just how polite people slander other's with offensive stereotypes & myths... "Liberals believe [random evil.]" ... "No we don't." Repeat.
The point of this thread is obvious, to help you guys understand that both government & altruism have played a big part in technology - to help you understand that real politics is more complex than "evil liberals vs business." We're not against business - you never hear anyone complaining about the greed of Steve Jobs & Apple corporation.
In other words, I'm trying to debunk libertarian slander, stereotypes, & myths. No one is denying that greed can be good, but the over-simplification by libertarians isn't being fair to the real complexities of the world.
Are you going to answer my question?
Ego: "You said that you don't want to take profits from individuals who do enjoy them. Really? You don't want to tax? Yes, you do. You don't have to explicitly say, 'I want to tax' before others are allowed to state the obvious."
First off, libertarians support taxes & so did the founding fathers. The real debate is *how* to tax & I didn't state my tax beliefs, so don't assume. We're not practicing some ideal government, we're paying for the wars of conservatives.
Frankly if you want to blame someone for high taxes *blame yourselves* because it's you guys who almost always vote republican:
"the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000) -- http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735
Here's a hint: we have no choice but to raise taxes for the spending *you guys* voted for. Again! It never ends. And if your party voted for Bush twice, you're conservatives.
So in other words, you came here to attack a strawman. Well, I'll let any conservatives here know when I see one.
First off, libertarians support taxes
No, we don't. We're not LP hacks.
Edward-M: Ego: "You said that you don't want to take profits from individuals who do enjoy them. Really? You don't want to tax? Yes, you do. You don't have to explicitly say, 'I want to tax' before others are allowed to state the obvious." First off, libertarians support taxes & so did the founding fathers. The real debate is *how* to tax & I didn't state my tax beliefs, so don't assume. We're not practicing some ideal government, we're paying for the wars of conservatives. Frankly if you want to blame someone for high taxes *blame yourselves* because it's you guys who almost always vote republican: "the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000) -- http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735 Here's a hint: we have no choice but to raise taxes for the spending *you guys* voted for. Again! It never ends. And if your party voted for Bush twice, you're conservatives.
I'm not going to allow you to squirm out of this one. Earlier you said that you do not want to take any profits, and you lectured me about assuming things about you that you didn't explicitly say. When confronted about your lie, you said that libertarians and the founding fathers want to take profits, too! How ridiculous can you guys be?
Stop accusing us of being Republicans and/or fake libertarians. We're not. Aside from the fact that I've never voted before, I've never encountered anyone here who is in favor of taxation.
The main point is: Why did you lie and state you didn't want to take profits? Did you think anyone would believe you?
"When confronted about your lie, you said that libertarians and the founding fathers want to take profits, too! How ridiculous can you guys be?"
Try learning before typing!
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" -- The constitution
And have you read the libertarian platform? It's full of "reducing" taxes, not eliminating them.
Besides, there's more ways to tax than to take profit - like having a gas tax to use the public roads, etc, etc. I told you - we democrats don't have our ideal government, we're paying for the spending *you guys* voted for.
Again, what on earth are you talking about? If you want libertarian views, read Rothbard's For a New Liberty, Hoppe's Democracy - the God that Failed, Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom, Mises' Liberalism,.. the list goes on. Cato is perhaps the least libertarian institution out there of all so-called libertarian organizations.
Try learning before typing! "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" -- The constitution
Are you just trolling? We both know that I wasn't challenging the obvious fact that the founding fathers supported taxation. I was challenging you for lying and then saying, "well they want to do it, too!". Why did you lie?
Amazing. No one is this naive, not even a leftist. Where do you think sales tax revenue comes from? Thin air? If no one is having his/her money seized, there's no tax revenue!
Aside from that, I have a sneaking suspicion that you fantasize about more than just sales taxes. Most leftists want progressive income taxes; what about you?
Edward-M:First off, libertarians support taxes
I think you are the one making assumptions. Just because many people here embrace libertarian ideals does not mean that they are fans of the libertarian party. I doubt you will find anybody here who is a fan of the LP. Get a clue dude and just stop talking, you are only embarrasing yourself by presenting your ignorance.
Ego... At this point, all you're doing is arguing about semantics. (Like whether all money counts as "profit.") Which is, by the way, completely absurd - there's legal disputes, gifts, luck, etc, etc. I'm NOT trying to debate these semantics with you so if you continue to do so I won't reply.
I'll repeat myself yet again - the taxes we democrats have to raise are mostly conservative spending - so please inleast *try* to consider that we may behave differently if we had our ideal government. Libertarians are always ranting about their ideal government, but if you had a political party that inherited trillions in debt you might have to act differently than you'd want to.
No loss on our part.
Edward-M: Ego... At this point, all you're doing is arguing about semantics. (Like whether all money counts as "profit.") Which is, by the way, completely absurd - there's legal disputes, gifts, luck, etc, etc. I'm NOT trying to debate these semantics with you so if you continue to do so I won't reply.
What ARE you trying to debate?
Edward-M:if you continue to do so I won't reply.
Finally.
"What ARE you trying to debate?"
I'm trying to debunk libertarian myths/slander/ & stereotypes. For example how libertarians voted for bush twice then blamed us for the taxation policy for the spending *you guys* voted for.
You libertarians always rant about your ideal government, but if you had a real political party that inherited trillions in debt you might have to act differently than you'd want to.
Real politics isn't as simple as the slander & myths that libertarians rant about online.
I don't get the point of the post.
First, altruism, non-profits, research institutes and scientific research are fantasitic features of a free society. You're are making a mistake that we think that in a libertarian world all motivation is monetary profit seeking. That was the case with adam smith models, but you are at MISES.ORG, ludwig von mises suggested the Human nature causes humans to act on a variety of motivations, not just profit motive. Most of us here believe in a voluntary society, where there is no government coersion, these non-financial aspects of the human being would flourish even more.
Second, you referenced patents and other intellectual property rights. Many of us don't believe in that as it is merely a gov't enforced privledge.
Please don't assume what others think either.
next, libertarian can mean a lot of different things. I don't think anyone here voted for Bush as most don't find voting in general as acceptable. I'd say about half of the people here are anarchists. This is one the more radical libertarian sites.
Leftist, chill out.
How on Earth do you define profit? How does taking one's money not decrease one's profit?
How about this: you can have all of your leftist programs and taxes, so long as you make them voluntary. Deal?
Edward-M: I'm trying to debunk libertarian myths/slander/ & stereotypes. For example how libertarians voted for bush twice then blamed us for the taxation policy for the spending *you guys* voted for. You libertarians always rant about your ideal government, but if you had a real political party that inherited trillions in debt you might have to act differently than you'd want to. Real politics isn't as simple as the slander & myths that libertarians rant about online.
Wow...Maybe you should be looking for an LP website then, because most people here dont want to have anything to do with the LP.
By the way, how did you find out about mises.org? Because whoever told you that this was a place with people in favor of taxes, conservatism and the LP was completely wrong.
Edward-M:First off, libertarians support taxes & so did the founding fathers. The real debate is *how* to tax & I didn't state my tax beliefs, so don't assume. We're not practicing some ideal government, we're paying for the wars of conservatives.
Frankly if you want to blame someone for high taxes *blame yourselves* because it's you guys who almost always vote republican:"the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000) -- http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735
Edward, you clearly did not do enough research before entering this board. I will outline politely before someone else does this a little more bluntly. You say you are here to debunk lies about liberal ideals, you are making an analogous error in your assessment of libertarians.
First, understand libertarians are probably more divided and in disagreement with one another than many liberals and conservatives. You seem to have come here with the assumption that the Libertarian Party (AKA "Big 'L' libertarians") represent the views of all or most libertarians ("small 'l' libertarians"). To put it lightly, you are mistaken. The Mises Institute represents a sect of libertarianism that believes in absolute free-markets and freedom as an ends, not a means. Most here believe that the libertarians you are apparently more familiar with are inconsistent at best, and are not true champions of liberty. Indeed, many here disagree with what level of statism, if any, is required, however all agree the ultimate goal is the absolute maximization of liberty. Therefore, you will find you are not calling anyone's bluff by citing the Constitution. While many here are sympathetic to some of the Founders, namely Jefferson, I think most would say they failed, and failed terribly.
The libertarian axiom is 'non-aggression towards non-aggressors". Taxation is a form of aggression, because it is coercive.
Now if you would like to get into a respectful discussion about the virtues of statism and the welfare state, I am sure many here would be more than happy to engage you. Understand the people here are well versed in the areas of politics, ethics, and history. So please show some respect and do not assume the entire community has ignored, forgotten, or missed the Constitution and/or LP platform.
On a side note, I rarely participate on this board because I am relatively new to the Austrian School and have much work to do before I have anything meaningful to contribute. However, if nothing else, I feel I may be able to offer the perspective of an outsider with a more conventional or mainstream outlook, for what it is worth.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV. And you think you're so clever and class less and free. But you're still f***ing peasants as far as I can see.
There's room at the top they are telling you still. But first you must learn how to smile as you kill, if you want to be like the folks on the hill.
Im going to get this back on topic. Your right most inventions that are of high need, are not made for profit. I think most people associate that everything that exists today, would exist on the free market. Not true. States have made many inventions. It is profit that keeps those inventions alive. And the fact that very poor people( Carnegie) are ones who become billionaires kind of discredits your argument somewhat
I believe that in order to even think about anarchy, you need to realise that humans are inherently good natured and not selfish greedy bastards. once being on the moderate left myself, I feel for the poor. But I think that the state makes people poor than society itself.
The fact that my dad can't afford good healthcare isn't because of Exxon Mobile. Its the State taking out a 3rd of his money.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Jon Irenicus: Question: who cares? What was the point of this thread?
The point is that defenders of IP often try the tactic of claiming that without IP, there is no profit motive for inventors to invent, so we need to keep IP around or the geniuses will stop producing amazing products. Responding with a list of this sort would be an effective rebuttal, I think.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
Edward-M: First off, libertarians support taxes & so did the founding fathers. The real debate is *how* to tax & I didn't state my tax beliefs, so don't assume. We're not practicing some ideal government, we're paying for the wars of conservatives.
Buddy, your talking to the wrong crowd if you're gonna claim libertarians support taxes. The good portion of the people here are anarchist who don't even support the idea of the existance of the state, let alone legalized theft in the form of taxes.
Edward-M: Frankly if you want to blame someone for high taxes *blame yourselves* because it's you guys who almost always vote republican: "the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000) -- http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735
If a libertarian votes for a Republican its only because the Republicans generally favor lowering taxes. Whereas Democrats generally favor socialistic enslavement of the country through more government and more taxes. And quoting Cato ain't gonna get you anywhere here, friend. They aren't any better than the American Enterprise Institute or the CFR as far as I'm concerned.
Edward-M: Here's a hint: we have no choice but to raise taxes for the spending *you guys* voted for. Again! It never ends. And if your party voted for Bush twice, you're conservatives.
"We" never voted for more spending. You voted for more spending. I assume you must be a liberal Democrat or some other form of socialist trash. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of spending more money, raising taxes, etc., etc. You keep saying "your party" like all libertarians support the Libertarian Party (I only joined yesterday because I plan on running for office in the next few years and the LP has automatic ballot access in Texas). The thing about it, friend, is that the LP didn't vote for Bush, individuals did. And if they made that horrible mistake it's because they thought Bush would keep his promise of no nation building, limiting government and reducing spending. Anyone that fell for it a second time is just an idiot. Much like you, you socialist trash.
The people on this forum don't support Bush, don't support taxation, and don't even support the existence of the state. If you're going to come to a place to bash people you'd better learn a little about them first before you open your stupid ignorant mouth. The simple fact of the matter is that no one here is in favor of more taxes. If nothing else we favor far less spending than is proposed even by "conservatives."
And for your own enlightenment: You don't solve the problem of over spending by raising taxes. You solve the problem by cutting spending. And you make things even better by cutting spending and taxes. That's the libertarian way. But socialist trash like yourself wouldn't understand that.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
He claims that he came here to clear up misconceptions about leftists (even though he didn't)... and he goes on to accuse a bunch of anarcho-capitalists of supporting taxation! Epic.
Good to know he likes porn, though!
Ego: Good to know he likes porn, though!
Lol.
To answer the Original Topic.
Are you trying to make the argument that many inventions can't be made because it needs government intervention to do so?
Because, assuming that this is your argument, the only thing you have done is noted some things that government-funding may have played a part in. I do not see how this makes the implication that government-funding is necessary. Also, I'm getting the general idea that a lot of your statements are based on correlation implies causation fallacies. If you want to bring up some data to back something up, that's fine, just note the following:
1) Make it clear what your theoretical reasoning is (like, I'm guessing you may have wanted to say that certain non-governmental institutions don't have access to large almost unlimited capital like the State might have).
2) At least for me, don't try arguing something like, for example, "The trivial pains that we go through for extra taxation wouldn't offset these great technological innovations that the State has made." Because I'm not a Utilitarian. At least with me, if you want such an argument to apply, you're going to have to convince me of Utilitarianism first.
Furthermore, I'm going to have to agree with a lot of the other people on here, and warn you that you have entered anarchist/extreme minarchist territory, and at least I ask that you don't make such hasty assumptions on our beliefs.
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
Who doesn't like porn?
Fephisto:Because, assuming that this is your argument, the only thing you have done is noted some things that government-funding may have played a part in. I do not see how this makes the implication that government-funding is necessary.
This reminds me of how 'economic incentives' work. The federal government/state/locality offers funding in the form of a grant or tax credit, the company obviously accepts, and then the government agency turns around and takes credit for the 'resulting' job creation or retention and corresponding capital investment. In truth, 9 times out of 10, the company was going to do this anyway, and all the state agency has done is take money out of my pocket and give it to this business. Go to any state's department of commerce or economic development page and look up the press releases, you'll see what I'm talking about.
5. Phone. “Meucci was recognized as the first inventor of the telephone by the US House.” “[He] was unable to raise sufficient funds to pay for the patent application… In 1861 his cottage was auctioned.” 6. Lightbulb. “Göbel [invented] the first practical bulb… in 1854, a quarter of a century before Edison’s patent.”—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_G%C3%B6belYes he died pennyless too.
6. Lightbulb. “Göbel [invented] the first practical bulb… in 1854, a quarter of a century before Edison’s patent.”—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_G%C3%B6belYes he died pennyless too.
Just because they didn't make a profit, doesn't mean the invention was not made for profit. Are only successful ventures "for-profit"?
In addition to the other arguments which have been raised, many of the things which came to us as a result of government funding were in fact co-opted from the private sector for public use while they were still in development.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I think what you some of you guys need to do is not dismiss people as "leftist socialist trash" and try being polite and convincing in your arguements. If we want our lives to change for the better and become a true free-market society- its not going to happen without persuading and educating people.
Its not as if people that do have a socialist bent are thinking "mwahahahaha I love taxing these people and taking their money!!" they genuinely believe that restributing goods will bring about a better society. You're not going to convince any of them that they're wrong by insulting them- even if they insult you.
auctionguy10: I think what you some of you guys need to do is not dismiss people as "leftist socialist trash" and try being polite and convincing in your arguements. If we want our lives to change for the better and become a true free-market society- its not going to happen without persuading and educating people. Its not as if people that do have a socialist bent are thinking "mwahahahaha I love taxing these people and taking their money!!" they genuinely believe that restributing goods will bring about a better society. You're not going to convince any of them that they're wrong by insulting them- even if they insult you.
There are people interested in reasonable discussions, and then there are people that come to troll forums by pulling a bunch of strawmen out of their magical statist hat. The OP cleary never did any research on anything related to mises.org, and if you're not going to do some background reading before posting on a forum, and then, after being corrected many times, continue to pursue your strawmen, this is where respect ends.
There are people that value the pursuit of truth above their personal prejudices, and then there are those who don't care about anything beyond defending their untenable opinions with strawmen and lies. The former are worth talking to, the latter are a waste of time.
Eitherway, this thread is hilarious in its own way, so I'm bookmarking it for the future use when I decide I want a laugh.