Posted on 09/25/2005 6:45:25 AM PDT by KevinDavis
Trachtenberg and other historians of the Guilded Age have addressed that. Has to do with the nature of the labor force and the inclusion of the labor force culturally with the owners/operators of the corporations. There can't be different cultures allowed to evolve and eventually separate; the cultures must be at least kept in contact at some level. Public libraries, public education, art museums, music are the common meeting ground. Even hip-hop, ska, iPods, Internet, car design are widely distributed by the corporations so the culture is one on the surface.
You said: "Sure, OTOH, private enterprise, which made America what it is, needs something that is not available in outer space and until that something is provided there will be no space development. Gov't should be doing some things that private enterprise cannot, even the minor deity Ayn Rand saw that."
I said: "What use would a corporation see in teaching philosophy, art, history, or anything not directly related to production?"
To which you replied: "Trachtenberg and other historians of the Guilded Age have addressed that. Has to do with the nature of the labor force and the inclusion of the labor force culturally with the owners/operators of the corporations. There can't be different cultures allowed to evolve and eventually separate; the cultures must be at least kept in contact at some level. Public libraries, public education, art museums, music are the common meeting ground. Even hip-hop, ska, iPods, Internet, car design are widely distributed by the corporations so the culture is one on the surface.
So what things do you believe that private enterprise cannot or will not do, that the government should provide for?
I've already argued with statists who believe that calling government "the people" hides a multitude of sins. But I'm terrible with names--have we spoken before, or are you one I haven't met yet?
By the way, man I love philosophical conversations like this, thank you! I wish I had the grounding in history that you have.
Note that that's not what's happening now. The larger answer is, someone will teach philosophy or poetry because someone else will pay to learn it. In other words, the question rests on the premise that poetry is useless, and nobody will preserve it unless forced by the government.
Nope, I think I would remember someone calling me an idiot as slyly as you just did, of course you did not refute any of my arguments, but hey as long as you get off on being on your high horse and looking down on us plebes, than you don't have to.
At least RightWhale took on one of those arguments for you and a heck of a lot more effectively than you just did, but then he's a nice guy.
Yes, no matter how much money is wasted........
Ayn Rand said that some things are too big and don't pay well enough for private enterprise to undertake. City utilities, roads, canals, and international treaties can be profitable, but only in isolated cases. In general, gov't must do public works or they won't get built or run well enough.
I never called you an idiot. I called you a statist. Further, I remarked that you believe your statism is justified by the pretense that Kennedy et al. are "the people".
of course you did not refute any of my arguments
Look up "shifting the burden of proof". Your argument is contained in your assumption that, if government didn't force us to study poetry, nobody would study poetry. It remains for you to prove that this is true. If you manage to prove it, you next need to prove why it matters: if literally nobody wants poetry, unless forced to deal in it, then why should there be such a thing as "poetry" at all?
After all, nobody undergoes savage beatings unless forced to do it. So by your reasoning, shouldn't the government enforce the practice? After all, who'll receive savage beatings if the government weren't forcing anyone to?
We will also have to create artifical gravity as muscle and bone atrophy are problems we still haven't overcome yet.
I honestly think there will never be able to colinize space as we haven't even begun to attempt undersea colonies which would be much easier to create.
Thank you for explaining that. How does your or Ayn Rand's philosophy work when it comes to government funding of space exploration? Do you see it as sort of an Eisenhower interstate project? That’s basically the way I have pictured it.
Believe me, I knew nothing about this until I started reading a year ago, just uninformed opinion up until then. FR provided the necessity, as you can well imagine. So many opinions, so little backup. I had developed an asteroid mining plan, a business plan with profit and loss and all that many years ago, but really had to wonder why somebody wasn't already doing it. Gradually the light dawned, and then FR came along, and Amazon.com and now I see why it isn't happening. Oddly, the Pres and the Senate see it the same way, but they aren't doing anything about it. That's the problem now, and that is why we have to read these sources, because the Senators and their lawyers have and that is the nature of the real debate today. FR is kind of like family discussions that go on in the kitchen, but when the discussions hit the street most of them evaporate.
Both Emerson and Santayana have developed the theme of the use of poetry, Emerson by actually using the form, Santayana by reflecting on it. The corporations want this taught, although they won't go to the sources. Just a passing acquaintance will do for their purposes. Put some color prints of famous paintings up in the living room and put a couple of books by Steinbeck on the shelf over in the corner. That's good enough to knit society into a coherent whole. Oh, turn on the TV, or if you are going really deep go to a live show, either community theater or a touring fiddler. There's always church, and the corporations actually encourage that, too. It's all to the good--cheap and plentiful willing labor and a deep bench of properly motivated consumers of the proper goods at the proper velocity.
You might not have exactly been caling me an idiot there, but it sure didn't amount to, "I see your point and here is where I disagree". It was more along the lines of,"Who are you to question my authority on such matters?"
As for the argument of:
Look up "shifting the burden of proof". Your argument is contained in your assumption that, if government didn't force us to study poetry, nobody would study poetry. It remains for you to prove that this is true. If you manage to prove it, you next need to prove why it matters: if literally nobody wants poetry, unless forced to deal in it, then why should there be such a thing as "poetry" at all?
After all, nobody undergoes savage beatings unless forced to do it. So by your reasoning, shouldn't the government enforce the practice? After all, who'll receive savage beatings if the government weren't forcing anyone to?
Well you might be right, although I think the study of poetry is valid whether corporations would deem it so or not, which they might according to RightWhale.
You didn't argue that point, you chose to nullify the entire question of your authority on the matter.
Do you see the difference in style that RightWhale used and the style you chose to use?
As for questions on the roles of government and whether it should or should not do something that is outside the purview of the Constitution, as RightWhale said:
Ayn Rand said that some things are too big and don't pay well enough for private enterprise to undertake. City utilities, roads, canals, and international treaties can be profitable, but only in isolated cases. In general, gov't must do public works or they won't get built or run well enough.
Maybe you'll treat his arguments better than mine.
Ayn Rand said it, but it was already being done. Early in the American Republic, second generation, after the founders--many of the founders were still around although not young anymore--one of the power thinkers [Clay, Webster, and Calhoun] got to be Sec'y of War. He, Calhoun, one of the most Constructionist interpreters of the Constitution there has been, tried to get the Army Corps of Engineers set up to build some infractructure, roads, canals, forts, so the country would be able to defend itself, grow strong, and stay unified. That's about where I see NASA, a quasi-military construction project that will extend America into space to stay. Private property rights are necessary for the rise of industry and commerce in space, and that will be dealt with eventually--I think it should be done now, that's the main difference between FedGov and the RightWhale plans.
Sigh. Stop reading things into things. The question meant, "I can't remember who I've spoken to as recently as yesterday. So is this a new argument, or just a repeat?"
Well you might be right, although I think the study of poetry is valid whether corporations would deem it so or not...
You're free to think that--but you aren't free to take my money by force to fund your whims. If people consider poetry valuable, they will pay for some. If they don't, then you'll have a hard time proving that they should be forced to pay for some. But that's precisely what you are doing: stating that people must be forced to pay for things because (1) they are necessary, and (2) nobody would pay for them unless forced.
You didn't argue that point, you chose to nullify the entire question of your authority on the matter.
If you look up "appeal to authority", you'll discover that I didn't make one. If you do as I suggested earlier, and look up "burden of proof", you'll realize that I was pointing out what you must prove in order to clinch your case. Namely, you must prove both (1) that people wouldn't pay for poetry (education, etc.) unless forced, and (2) that poetry (etc.) should in fact be forced upon people.
Instead of shouldering the burden of proof and trying to make your case, you're taking side trips into whether you like my "tone".
"Ayn Rand said that some things are too big and don't pay well enough for private enterprise to undertake. City utilities, roads, canals, and international treaties can be profitable, but only in isolated cases. In general, gov't must do public works or they won't get built or run well enough."
That is what they call an "appeal to authority". The answer is, who gives a care what Ayn Rand said? If you want to prove her claim for her, as she certainly didn't, you must prove that (1) some things are too big for private enterprise, or (2) some things do not return a profit, and at the same time (3) those things must be done despite #1 or #2, and therefore must be done by forcible exaction of resources from the people.
You'll have a hard time proving it, but you're free to try.
Yah, I always thought that horseshoe crabs looked aliens.
Early in the American Republic, second generation, after the founders--many of the founders were still around although not young anymore--one of the power thinkers [Clay, Webster, and Calhoun] got to be Sec'y of War. He, Calhoun, one of the most Constructionist interpreters of the Constitution there has been, tried to get the Army Corps of Engineers set up to build some infractructure, roads, canals, forts, so the country would be able to defend itself, grow strong, and stay unified. That's about where I see NASA, a quasi-military construction project that will extend America into space to stay. Private property rights are necessary for the rise of industry and commerce in space, and that will be dealt with eventually--I think it should be done now, that's the main difference between FedGov and the RightWhale plans.
And some of my own arguments on the matter:
A response I wrote to a fellow believer in government funded space exploration:
I'm sorry they won't get it until China is standing on the Moon or on asteroids and launching well aimed rocks down on us and then their bleating will be heard, "Oh why, Ohh how did this happen, how is it now that the greatest nation on this Earth is now going to be destroyed in the next 15 min and the Government can't do anything about it."
If they think China isn't seeing space as the ultimate weapon’s platform and that any UN declaration is going to stop them they are so far gone there is no hope for them.
Our industry will not go there because there is no profit in it, yet, except for LEO. China on the other hand doesn’t need profit for it to make sense. China sees space as their ultimate defense plan, and we are just plain stupid if we don't see that. Nobody inspects China's rockets for weapons or asks them what their projects are for weapons platforms, why ask anyway, they'd just lie.
U.S. industry couldn't develop space based weapons on their own if they tried, some leftist freak would scream bloody murder, and again there is no profit in it.
If we cede the high ground to other nations then it's our own stupid fault when we are looking down the barrel of a gun. Imagine if Japan had developed the ICBM before us and what the world could have looked like.
(1) some things are too big for private enterprise, or (2) some things do not return a profit, and at the same time (3) those things must be done despite #1 or #2, and therefore must be done by forcible exaction of resources from the people.
It's not necessary for things to be too big for private enterprise for them not to get built. When certain things are needed for the public as whole,
(i.e. Interstates instead of roads that are already there, that provide for better commerce and better national defense support and also development of certain works such as space access when our enemies see that as a strategic resource)
but not necessary for business to operate, or considered to much of an expense to as not to be worth it then it might, and I say might, be for the general benefit of all including extended profit for those businesses in time.
Like the Greys? Astronauts from our future!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.