20th January 2008, 4:06 AM
(This post was last modified: 20th January 2008, 4:21 AM by Dark Jaguar.)
Well I really don't want my fate in the hands of a free market. If a little taxation and government funding is needed to keep progress on track, so be it.
I'm in favor of a free market but not completely free. I also don't think that a corporation in and of itself should be considered to have "rights". The people that own it, sure, but not the company itself. The fact is, places like CERN are not currently being built by companies. It takes tax money to do that.
The thing is, NASA existing and groups building CERN don't stop a free market from building their own versions in a race to the finish, and yet they don't seem to do it. There's a reason we elect leaders after all, and it's to find people that can decide where tax money is spent since the majority WON'T be stepping up to start all these projects. The free market is great in the sense of freedom but never be foolish enough to assume it is some wise amalgum of human knowledge there. In the same way, Wikipedia is a free market of ideas but at most it's just a tool, a launching point for actual research.
The reality is, yes there IS bunk social science. Some of it is legit, but the biggest clue that you have major problems and a lack of evidence is the sheer number of contrary hypothesis out there about it all and no real way to say which one is better than the other.
Rand is a fool. I can sympathize with her situation in a horrible communist upbringing but her ideals are about as evil a corruption of "logic" as one can find. Most of her conclusions all seem very nonsequiter, and she seems to get the idea that every single thing she ever thought was logically consistant. It had all the buzz words of rational thought but it all falls apart on close examination. Further, a moral system that actually operates that way would disintegrate in far too many real world situations. How is a system of "never use force unless they use it first" (an ideal I can get behind as an ideal but not a randian absolute) supposed to prevent a kid from burning their hand on a stove? Heck her whole philosophy didn't even seem to consider kids at all. What's her philosophy say about abandoning a child? According to her, it would not only be "acceptable" to do so but wrong to legally require someone, even if it's an orphanage or some institution paid for by taxes, to take over. Tough luck baby. Next time try being born with more merit. What good is a new born baby after all anyway?
Let me be clear. I would never suggest it be illegal for one to buy quack medicine or to make it illegal for people to believe this or that bit of tomfoolery. However, I AM in favor of social engineering. I disagree with the force angle in favor of the education angle. Further, I AM in favor of requiring any and all offered products to be tested for effectiveness and banned if they are found lacking. This is a "free market with oversight". Now sure someone might say "well that's not TOTALLY free" but neither is the average person. I give up my right to kill you and further expect that right to be stripped from everyone else whether they want it or not, because I realize it damages others. It's the same with scams and what they do to people. I consider most consumer watch programs in the government lack the teeth to do the job though... Often lots of things are just let go. Again, don't arrest someone who owns it. Heck, don't even arrest someone who sells the stuff so long as they don't claim it can do anything it can't do (directly or by knowing implication).
It gets to the other point though, these places need funding. That's where taxes are needed. It's not like these places can exist on their own. Current scientific experiments are very expensive. The thing is, in the infancy of science it was cheaper because the studies were on the much more easily visible and readily apparent aspects of physics. As that gets studied more subtle stuff is found, which requires more refined instruments, and today the effects that scientists have questions about are so subtle they require massive installations like CERN that look like Dr. Wily's castle/laboratory. It's worth it though because in strange eons even death may die.
I'm in favor of a free market but not completely free. I also don't think that a corporation in and of itself should be considered to have "rights". The people that own it, sure, but not the company itself. The fact is, places like CERN are not currently being built by companies. It takes tax money to do that.
The thing is, NASA existing and groups building CERN don't stop a free market from building their own versions in a race to the finish, and yet they don't seem to do it. There's a reason we elect leaders after all, and it's to find people that can decide where tax money is spent since the majority WON'T be stepping up to start all these projects. The free market is great in the sense of freedom but never be foolish enough to assume it is some wise amalgum of human knowledge there. In the same way, Wikipedia is a free market of ideas but at most it's just a tool, a launching point for actual research.
The reality is, yes there IS bunk social science. Some of it is legit, but the biggest clue that you have major problems and a lack of evidence is the sheer number of contrary hypothesis out there about it all and no real way to say which one is better than the other.
Rand is a fool. I can sympathize with her situation in a horrible communist upbringing but her ideals are about as evil a corruption of "logic" as one can find. Most of her conclusions all seem very nonsequiter, and she seems to get the idea that every single thing she ever thought was logically consistant. It had all the buzz words of rational thought but it all falls apart on close examination. Further, a moral system that actually operates that way would disintegrate in far too many real world situations. How is a system of "never use force unless they use it first" (an ideal I can get behind as an ideal but not a randian absolute) supposed to prevent a kid from burning their hand on a stove? Heck her whole philosophy didn't even seem to consider kids at all. What's her philosophy say about abandoning a child? According to her, it would not only be "acceptable" to do so but wrong to legally require someone, even if it's an orphanage or some institution paid for by taxes, to take over. Tough luck baby. Next time try being born with more merit. What good is a new born baby after all anyway?
Let me be clear. I would never suggest it be illegal for one to buy quack medicine or to make it illegal for people to believe this or that bit of tomfoolery. However, I AM in favor of social engineering. I disagree with the force angle in favor of the education angle. Further, I AM in favor of requiring any and all offered products to be tested for effectiveness and banned if they are found lacking. This is a "free market with oversight". Now sure someone might say "well that's not TOTALLY free" but neither is the average person. I give up my right to kill you and further expect that right to be stripped from everyone else whether they want it or not, because I realize it damages others. It's the same with scams and what they do to people. I consider most consumer watch programs in the government lack the teeth to do the job though... Often lots of things are just let go. Again, don't arrest someone who owns it. Heck, don't even arrest someone who sells the stuff so long as they don't claim it can do anything it can't do (directly or by knowing implication).
It gets to the other point though, these places need funding. That's where taxes are needed. It's not like these places can exist on their own. Current scientific experiments are very expensive. The thing is, in the infancy of science it was cheaper because the studies were on the much more easily visible and readily apparent aspects of physics. As that gets studied more subtle stuff is found, which requires more refined instruments, and today the effects that scientists have questions about are so subtle they require massive installations like CERN that look like Dr. Wily's castle/laboratory. It's worth it though because in strange eons even death may die.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)