Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do your research. In addition to receiving the benefit of public education, these individuals all received nontrivial amounts of government mandated funding.
In a libertarian society, scientific advancement would come to a virtual standstill. Nearly 50% of conservatives have professed to not "believing" in science - they will doubtlessly raise their children (in this new homeschooling/local schooling system) in a similar manner.
Yours and others' displayed ignorance is utterly amazing!
How did Americans survive when they didn't have all your societal government redistribution of wealth scheme programs? How did a single medicine ever get invented without the FDA? How did ordinary people improve their lot in life if someone wasn't there to supply them with governmental teat suckling?
There is no cure for stupidity, but you have no excuse because your ignorance could be overcome with a little effort on your part. Oh wait, I forgot. They don't have a federal department of ignorance abatement yet for you to suckle off another redistribution of wealth scam's teat.
It is like you think rent-seeking is good. It's like you think protectionism is good. It's like you think government created utility monopolies is good. It's like you think bridges to nowhere or bridges for turtles is good because it employed someone to produce. It's like you think subsidies that pick winners and losers are good. It's like you think(insert ignorant assed, government concocted redistributive scheme here) is good.
Last edited by KS_Referee; 02-03-2013 at 02:05 PM..
Yours and others' displayed ignorance is utterly amazing!
How did Americans survive when they didn't have all your societal government redistribution of wealth scheme programs? How did a single medicine ever get invented without the FDA? How did ordinary people improve their lot in life if someone wasn't there to supply them with governmental teat suckling?
There is no cure for stupidity, but you have no excuse because your ignorance could be overcome with a little effort on your part. Oh wait, I forgot. They don't have a federal department of ignorance abatement yet for you to suckle off another redistribution of wealth scam's teat.
It is like you thing rent-seeking is good. It's like you think protectionism is good. It's like you think government created utility monopolies is good. It's like you thinkbridges to nowhere or bridges for turles is good because it employed someone to produce. It's like you think subsidies that pick winners and losers are good. It's like you think(insert ignorant assed, government concocted redistributive scheme here) is good.
So what you are saying is that we should go back to the early 1900s or the 1800s? Get rid of all the structure and order we have in society we have right now and go back to the days when things were far more haphazard? I could also talk on a cellphone in the 1980s but that doesnt mean that I now want to get rid of all the fancy smartphone options I have today and go back to the 'good ol days' of talking on a cellphone the size of a shoebox.
Most of those vaccinations were made by groups of individuals working at institutions or corporations that got federal funding.
Well I'll be damned. It appears a true historian has figured out we never had any medicine until we had the FDA to protect us from our own ignorance. The same FDA that has gone out of their way to try to jail one man for revolutionizing cancer CURES, Dr Stanislaw Burzynski because he was a threat to the cozy rent-seeking relationship between big pharma, oncology and the FDA.
Funny how the first real regulation of medical drugs didn't happen until 1938, during that time where the New Deal SOCIALISM was shoved down everyone's throat. FDR made no pretense about the fact that he would shove his sickness down people's throat when he threatened to stack the Supreme Court with his appointees if they didn't allow what he wanted. No where in the Constitution does it say how many SCOTUS Justices are to be on the bench.
You, on the other hand, are still deluded with the notion that vaccine developments are purely individual endeavors.
Advances in medicine? Again I point to Stanislaw Burzynski. He fought a constant uphill battle waged against him by govrnment, phama and oncology. They even went as far as to try to steal his patents.
This would be a disaster in practice, for so many reasons.
Having no welfare state would quickly create a society much like Haiti or Guatemala, with a super-rich elite and millions mired in poverty. Eliminating income taxes would basically shut down the entire society.There would be no money available to provide any public services or even maintain basic physical infrastructure. The current value of all the gold mined in all of human history isn't even half the value of the US economy alone. Going on some kind of gold standard would instantly impoverish billions of people, as their assets became worthless.
It will never happen, for the simple reason that corporate America won't let it. There is not a single major industry in this country, from agribusiness to aerospace, that doesn't depend for its very existence on massive public subsidies.
People had charities before the redistribution of wealth government scam called welfare came along. Furthermore, had the government not continually interfered with the free market through rent-seeking, be they subsidies, protections, tariffs, or any other bastardization of the free market, there would be very little need for a welfare program.
Has the creation of welfare reduced the amount of people living in poverty? Has the war on poverty, with its trillions of invested dollars worked at all? Yet THIS is the redistribution of wealth SCAM you hold up as the best flag bearer, and without it we would perish?
On the subject of rent-seeking (in the form of subsidies, protections, etc) your are completely correct, but I believe that was addressed properly by the list:
Quote:
5. No more economic regulations. There would be a total separation of economy and state. Just as we do not permit the government to subsidize or regulate religion, so it would be with the economy. The government would be prohibited from subsidizing or regulating economic activity.
So what you are saying is that we should go back to the early 1900s or the 1800s? Get rid of all the structure and order we have in society we have right now and go back to the days when things were far more haphazard? I could also talk on a cellphone in the 1980s but that doesnt mean that I now want to get rid of all the fancy smartphone options I have today and go back to the 'good ol days' of talking on a cellphone the size of a shoebox.
And you wouldn't have to because no government program created that smartphone. You might try to argue that without government interference there would never be cell service, phone service or electric service in the country (rural areas), but as a person who works in one of those industries I know there is a lot of money to be made by building that infrastructure and providing those services for a fee. That fee might cost a lot more at first, in order to help offset the costs of investment, but that is ALWAYS the case in a free market capitalism system. That bag phone, even as outdated and antiquated as you think it is, was once the BEST technology had to offer, and you can bet it wasn't cheap. So why should the technology, investment and infrastructure be provided to people cheap if it costs the company a lot of money?
I can get a cheap Chinese red display led watch for under $5. But in 1972 Pulsar had one pretty similar to that watch for $2,100.00 My brother had a $200 dollar version in 1978. Innovation and technology costs. It can produce great results, but it costs drastically up front.
You seem to be advocating to disperse those costs to society. Um... would that be that redistribution of wealth thing again?
Almost all dissent to these views seems to come from those who hold free market capitalism in contempt. Maybe those of you who completely oppose these ideas would benefit from watching Milton Friedman's Free To Choose series. Here is a link to that series: Common Sense Capitalism: Free to Choose
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
