Quote: Some inventions come when the government wants to do something that is impossible and then asks the private sector for help.
That is where almost everything comes from.. which is why I'm not 100% against government funded research like some are...
I wouldn't go that far. It is only some of them. Most useful inventions are born out of the necessity for someone needing to do something of their own and coming up with a to solve it.
There are, however, some inventions that come about with an impossible government specification that must be met... and which eventually is. The government couldn't create the product but made the demands of private contractors.
If there was a government demand for an elevator to the moon, you can bet your ass that it would be a private contractor to come up with the solution. When (not if) space travel becomes a standard event, it will be a private venture that leads the way, not a government one.
Quote: Most useful inventions are born out of the necessity for someone needing to do something of their own and coming up with a to solve it.
Most useful inventions are merely adapting things already invented to a new purpose or combining existing things for a new purpose... or they were a total accident. So it depends on what you consider the "invention"... Teflon, for example, from a documentary I saw was invented by accident by DuPont a century ago... it had some interesting characteristics... then the government got ahold of it and found all kinds of practical applications for it in aerospace and invested a ton of money into developing those uses... now DuPont puts it almost everything... so who gets credit for the "invention"? I suppose the guy at DuPont does technically but would it be what it is today without the government finding all kinds of needs for it? Hard to say...
Quote: When (not if) space travel becomes a standard event, it will be a private venture that leads the way, not a government one.
Maybe but this is where the problem lies... the private venture that leads the way will be using all of the technology for rocket propulsion, living weightlessly, maintaining an environment, storing food, disposing of waste, etc... all brought about by the government. All the private entity is really doing is adding passengers to a technology that already existed. And if that space travel happens to be to Mars or some other place, you can bet that it will only happen after the government got there first and proved it could be done and how to do it.
If all it has to do is gather some people with a goal and throw money at it, the gov't can accomplish great things because in those instances the gov't itself is not what is in control. It feeds the funding and gets out of the way.
That is how D/ARPA, NASA, Manhatten Project, etc.. all were quite successful. It is when the project crosses that invisible line from being gov't funded to being a full-blown gov't entity and gets swallowed by the bureaucracy that all efficacy and efficiency dies.
Of significant note is that in every case, the gov't merely paid people to do jobs where they discovered these things. It was the private sector, however, that found public uses and brought these things to the masses. The gov't cannot do that, even if it tried (or was permitted).
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Very well put, which is why it is such a complex issue.... Some large percentage (I won't even begin to speculate on how large) of the most essential inventions have the governments fingerprints on them, usually through funding... and that is kind of how this whole debate started, it was about government funding of research.. the recipient of that funding is generally a private firm or a non-profit group.
And that was my point all along, not that the government is great at inventing stuff, rather that the government is pretty good at facilitating the invention of stuff, either by creating the need (as in military or NASA) applications.. or by funding.. or both.
I think the government should offer health insurance to all for at least basic medical and catastrophic needs. The premiums for it should be based on income. South Korea does this and has way better health coverage than we do.
Then companies can offer supplemental insurance to cover things not included by government insurance. This allows businesses to keep their healthcare cost affordable and be competitive in a world market where most other businesses don't have to pay for health insurance.
South Korea also has a strict limit to how much you can sue a doctor for as well. That helps to GREATLY lower the cost of going to a doctor. It was cheaper for me to see a doctor in South Korea with no health insurance at all than it was for me to go to an off network doctor in the USA.
...................................
For all that to do about birth control being covered or not. I really don't see where its the government's or a business's responsibility to cover for your sex life. The only time it should be is in the case of rape because women should not be forced to have children from a crime.
That being said, if you want to have sex then take care of the necessities yourself. You having sex is a choice. Your choice in dealing with the repercussion is on you too. Can't afford birth control? Can't afford condoms? Then WTF are you doing an action that will create children for?! That's on you. Keep your darn pants on. If you can't keep your pants on then don't complain to me that I should have to pay for your condoms and birth control. That's ridiculous.
It's not even a religious issue. It's an issue of taking responsibility for your own bodies and actions. Like my father also told me,"Son if you can't afford to have children then don't have sex without a rubber. If you can't afford a rubber then you got no business having sex." If you can't keep your pants on then YOU deal with what comes afterward yourself. Leave me and uncle Sam out of it.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
These last 2 posts (PPE & DC) pretty well summarize my views.
I also think this thread's last 2 posts dovetail nicely with the discussion about solar roads/sidewalks.
Our history has shown that there's almost NOTHING that can't be accomplished with the correct ratio (and role) of gov't AND private sector. The problem always seems to rise during the preliminary debates about how best to start.
I really don't mind seeing the Prez (any Prez) challenge his citizens to innovate, explore, discover... and I really have little trouble seeing congress release some seed money for r&d- as long as they then step back to let that natural ingenuity and drive come from those who decide to step up to the challenge.
It's always worked well for us in the past... and I see no reason it can't continue to work in the future.
"The Answer" has never been all one at the expense of the other.
Quote: Most useful inventions are born out of the necessity for someone needing to do something of their own and coming up with a to solve it.
Most useful inventions are merely adapting things already invented to a new purpose or combining existing things for a new purpose... or they were a total accident. So it depends on what you consider the "invention"... Teflon, for example, from a documentary I saw was invented by accident by DuPont a century ago... it had some interesting characteristics... then the government got ahold of it and found all kinds of practical applications for it in aerospace and invested a ton of money into developing those uses... now DuPont puts it almost everything... so who gets credit for the "invention"? I suppose the guy at DuPont does technically but would it be what it is today without the government finding all kinds of needs for it? Hard to say...
Quote: When (not if) space travel becomes a standard event, it will be a private venture that leads the way, not a government one.
Maybe but this is where the problem lies... the private venture that leads the way will be using all of the technology for rocket propulsion, living weightlessly, maintaining an environment, storing food, disposing of waste, etc... all brought about by the government. All the private entity is really doing is adding passengers to a technology that already existed. And if that space travel happens to be to Mars or some other place, you can bet that it will only happen after the government got there first and proved it could be done and how to do it.
Teflon was a development of DuPont, but the uses required by the government weren't produced by the government. They were requirements, nothing more. A private firm was tasked with doing the job, but it was the private firm that made use of Teflon and Velcro and so on.
And, in your example, you use rocketry. It was a development of a man, not a government. Nazi Germany used it, but it was a development long before then. If you want to get into the earliest uses, that was during the Chinese centuries ago and they used gunpowder in developing 'rocketry' among fireworks. Little has actually changed since that time.
Even if you were to take the use of it on the scale that the Nazis had done - it was under contracts with private firms, not in government labs or factories.
Quote: If you want to get into the earliest uses, that was during the Chinese centuries ago and they used gunpowder in developing 'rocketry' among fireworks. Little has actually changed since that time.
Little has changed between ancient Chinese fireworks and landing on the moon?
Quote: If you want to get into the earliest uses, that was during the Chinese centuries ago and they used gunpowder in developing 'rocketry' among fireworks. Little has actually changed since that time.
Little has changed between ancient Chinese fireworks and landing on the moon?
Not much...
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: If you want to get into the earliest uses, that was during the Chinese centuries ago and they used gunpowder in developing 'rocketry' among fireworks. Little has actually changed since that time.
Little has changed between ancient Chinese fireworks and landing on the moon?
No, between Chinese fireworks, centuries ago and today's fireworks.
But, realistically, between rocket tech circa 1945 and rocket tech circa 2014, not much has really changed. Electronic components have changed, but as far as rocket tech goes, not nearly as much as you'd think.
We have gotten very far off track... I'll just go back to my original point, the current rocket technology is where it is, in large part due to government investment...
Quote: We have gotten very far off track... I'll just go back to my original point, the current rocket technology is where it is, in large part due to government investment...
Investment? I suppose that's one way to look at it.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
I suppose that's one way to look at it.