[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 43 KB, 1005x857, NASA_Logo.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2945002 No.2945002 [Reply] [Original]

Old thread 404'd

Can anybody on /sci/ justify to me the amount of money spent on NASA related projects? I am still undecided as to the NASA budget.

>> No.2945018
File: 66 KB, 178x178, 1295115278208.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2945018

NASA creates eight times more money than it uses off the patents that it holds that were created through research.
Downside is all the money goes directly to the US Treasury.

>> No.2945033

Government spending doesn't disappear into the ether, it goes back into the economy. That's the whole reason it exists. The people who are paid by NASA go home and spend that money in their home towns on whatever it is NASA people buy.

In NASA's case, those people are brilliant scientists pondering the cosmos. Our country as a whole is better just to have them, and they do astounding things that make the whole world marvel. They always have, and they will continue to. For less than the US spends every year on ammunition.

Small price to pay.

>> No.2945035

you must not have read my post else you would have been thoroughly convinced that NASA's budget is justified

>> No.2945036

>I am still undecided as to the NASA budget.
Are you a member of Congress? If not, why do you think you should put forth the effort to form an opinion on NASA's budget?

>> No.2945038

Default "but that's useless" example: Number theory was intellectual wankery, then computers appeared.
Fundamental research isn't useful for building new things, but enables us to do so in the long run.
If we had told the guys at the Bell labs to build faster computers, they would have created faster mechanics. Instead, they were told to do whatever they wanted to, result: transistor.
That's of course a very dumbed down version of those happenings, but you get the drift. The solutions to many of our current problems might be in space, so in 100 years we might be pretty damn happy that we "wasted" the money on space missions earlier.

That and ... well, to see what can be done. We've passed the stage where eating and having sex is all that matters in life, the rest is up to us, so why not

>> No.2945043

>>2945036
Because he votes for the people that go into Congress?

>> No.2945053

>>2945033
That's some dangerous fucking thinking right there.

All that money that you think "goes back into the economy" was taken from the people who generated the value that that money represents. You can't just do that without limit without tearing apart the economy you're relying on to fund that government spending.

That said, NASA is more worthwhile than most of what the government spends our money on. I say we give NASA medicare's budget.

>> No.2945055

>>2945033

Interesting point, but I was more specifically speaking of manned spaceflight, such as that of the Discover shuttle

>> No.2945057
File: 45 KB, 560x768, Enceladus_560px.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2945057

All civilizations either become spacefaring or extinct.

>> No.2945062

>>2945043
So? He's not going to get a choice between one person who wants to increase the NASA budget and another who wants to decrease it. His opinion on the NASA budget will play no role in anything.

>> No.2945065

>>2945055
We have only a few billion years left to our sun. Manned spaceflight is the one and only path to the long-term future of mankind.

>> No.2945096

>>2945065

>Devil's Advocate

That sounds somewhat alarmist. And by your own admission we have "a few billion years left to our sun". Why should we fund manned spaceflight now?

>> No.2945102

>>2945002
safe nuclear energy made possible by mining materials from the moon. (i forget the minerals names)

>> No.2945108

>>2945096

in 3000 years' time:
>we can't afford spaceflight now, we can't even mine copper efficiently because some fuckers dug up all the easy deposits millenia ago

in 10,000 years' time
>we can't afford spaceflight now, we don't even have any nuclear fuel

in 50,000 years' time
>NO SPACEFLIGHT
>WORSHIP ALLAH PBUH

>> No.2945110

We can spend our lives looking down, trying to make things on this rock better by not worrying about what's above our heads, but when the asteroid comes... Or the Sun dies...

>> No.2945119

>>2945110

What is the likleyhood of an asteroid entering our orbit, and not burning up in our atmosphere? Little to none

Our Sun is a Main-Sequence star, meaning it has a minimum of 2 million years of continued survival.

>> No.2945127

>>2945119

>Million

Billion

>> No.2945132

>>2945062
It's not about how much money is spent, but where. Each congresscritter supports different programs, earmarks and special pet projects, many of which may benefit him, his workplace or his city.

Congressman A supports building pieces near your hometown, which might bring jobs. Congressman B thinks it's a waste of time. It's always good to be informed.

>> No.2945136

>>2945119
>What is the likleyhood of an asteroid entering our orbit, and not burning up in our atmosphere? Little to none
Try 100%. It's just a question of when.

>> No.2945138

>>2945127
>Implying that's a long time
>Implying he doesn't want the Human race to survive beyond that point

You must be one of those self-hating Humans...

>> No.2945140

>>2945119
I couldn't find the article, but apparently a few years ago we had a near miss (relative terms) with an asteroid the likes of which is believed to have knocked off the moon.
They only noticed way after it would have been too late to do anything beyond cry and wet ourselves had it been on target too.
I'm going to look some more. If I remember it was damned interesting.

>> No.2945143

>>2945136

What is the percentage of that happening within, for example, the next 1000 years?

>> No.2945148

>>2945143
Unknowable.

... Want to risk it?

>> No.2945149

>>2945132
>It's always good to be informed.
Not really. Congressmen rarely do what they say. "Being informed" about what politicians are doing in washington -- if you don't work in washington -- is nothing better than a reality tv distraction. I prefer to read philosophy, or science or math texts, or classic novels. It's healthier for the mind.

>> No.2945154

>>2945148

Depends, how large is that "risk"

>Still Devil's Advocate

>> No.2945163

>>2945154
Knowing how high that percentage may be is something we can't predict, nor is knowing how much damage it could cause. Rest assured, the damage could be anything from a smouldering pebble, to the destruction of Earth itself.

... Want to risk it?

>> No.2945183

>>2945154
So I kept looking. Never found the one I wanted but I did catch a few goodies:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Huge-Asteroid-Missed-Earth-Another-One-in-2029-May-Not-50870.shtml (this one is a little fatalist)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16697-tunguskasized-space-rock-buzzes-earth.html (smaller scale, but fairly devestating)

Anyway. Since there is so much shit going on up in that miserable black void of DOOOOOOOM the chances are surprisingly good (or bad?) that we will get smoked with something anus shattering at least eventually. Definitely withing the 2 billion year window we got going here.

>> No.2945216

>>2945018
>NASA creates eight times more money than it uses off the patents that it holds that were created through research.

Source?

>> No.2945232
File: 29 KB, 175x175, 1293681806465.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2945232

>>2945216
Urgh I read it in an article where a few scientists in different space-related fields discussed different points on why NASA is a positive thing and why it should have more funding. I can't find it anywhere.

>> No.2945241

>>2945216

Not sure if it's too that extent, but I've seen similar. There was a recent article where they plan on making the licensing of their patents cheaper - so there's easier access for people to create startups.

>> No.2945294

>Saying nasa researchers get paid and the money goes back into the economy
Broken window fallacy

>Saying Nasa research can turn into technological advancement that benefits people in the future
Broken window fallacy

>Implying Nasa is the only choice for advancing space-travel technology
False dilema

>Thinking that you're so smart that you think you know how to spend my money better than I do, and are willing to put me in jail if I don't comply?
Evil.

>> No.2945533

>>2945294
>Saying Nasa research can turn into technological advancement that benefits people in the future
Truth.

>Implying Nasa is the only choice for advancing space-travel technology
No, but they're aligned to a country, not a corporation without borders.

>> No.2945594

>>2945533
>Saying Nasa research can turn into technological advancement that benefits people in the future
Truth.
Yeah, it's true, but what if I argued that the government should invest 100 billion dollars to research what the most efficient way to organize the DMV was. There's no doubt that a more efficient DMV would be a good thing, but that doesn't take into account the opportunity cost of spending 100 billion dollars.

When you say that people should be taxed and so that their money goes to research, you're also saying that they shouldn't have the choice of how they spend that money. Maybe they'd buy a book or a new tv or hey, maybe invest in a private space-travel company. The point is that saying nasa does good things is not enough to justify it's existence.

>> No.2945620

>>2945594
>Yeah, it's true, but what if I argued that the government should invest 100 billion dollars to research what the most efficient way to organize the DMV was.
The cost isn't justified. Research for NASA is, and it proves itself again and again.


>When you say that people should be taxed and so that their money goes to research, you're also saying that they shouldn't have the choice of how they spend that money.
Of course you have a choice. You elect officials to act on your behalf, and I'd assume you would elect those with similar beliefs and ideologies.

>> No.2945660

>>2945594
Can you please humour me.

I think this entire post could be slightly edited so that instead of money spent by NASA we would be talking about money spent on cancer or dementia research. Do you agree that there is no justification for spending tax money on cancer or dementia research? Or have I cocked up my logic somewhere?

>> No.2945685

>>2945660
he's a libtard. he thinks any form of taxation is immoral and evil.

>> No.2945687

>>2945685
>he's a libtard. he thinks any form of taxation is immoral and evil.

Woah, you have your sides of the political spectrum construed severely...

>> No.2945694

>>2945057
Name one of the former... that you didn't see on Star Trek or Firefly

>> No.2945696

>>2945687
Unless he means Libertarian-tard

>> No.2945698

>>2945687
He meant libertarian, I think.

>> No.2945702

>>2945696
>>2945698
Ah, that would make sense.

>> No.2945712

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdwOlk6HIVc

>> No.2945715

>>2945660
People should be able to decide where they spend their money. Politicians have no clue what the most efficient allocation of resources is. They might give 1 billion to cancer and 1 billion to dementia, when it might have been better to put 1.5 billion to cancer and .5 billion to dementia. Yeah, if they give 1 billion to each, then it would be a good thing for people suffering from dementia, but it comes at the expense of people with cancer.

Likewise, the money spent on nasa might be better spent somewhere else. I'm not saying that what nasa does is useless, just that the way that we decide now how money gets spent is inefficient. It's done by politicians and special interest groups.

>>2945685
Yeah, I do think that, but I think all my arguments here so far have been about the opportunity cost of funding nasa.

>> No.2945725

Lib-tard here.
My only point so far has been to say that you can't just say that what nasa does has benefits, therefore it's justified. You also have to take into account where that money could have gone instead.

>> No.2945727

Platinum helium 3 iraq afganistan helcare.

DONE

>> No.2945731

>>2945715
So your arguments have been unrelated to the largest source of your illogicalness and unreasonability, they are still financial matters and thus still tainted by your political retardation to the point where they can be ignored or at least taken with a few grains of salt.

>> No.2945738

>>2945731
elaborate.

>> No.2945740

>>2945715
can you think of a better idea of who decides how to spend the money?
If politicians don't know how to do it then it's their job to learn how to do it correctly. I bet the problem is related with special interests being able to fund politicians campaigns.

>> No.2945742

>>2945715
I'll never understand people worshiping the Market like a god.

>> No.2945748

>>2945738
You believe that taxes are unjustified. This is an extreme position that disagrees with the reasoning of the vast majority of society. Moreover, there must be some justification for your taking this extreme position, which itself most likely involves the fields of finance or economics. This implies that there are some issues with your fundamental beliefs or understanding of economics that quite likely affect your thinking on many other related issues, almost certainly political economy, making even your reasoned arguments inconsistent with the reasoning of normal people.

>> No.2945751

>>2945740
In the same way you should be able to decide what car you get, what house you buy and what food you eat, you as an individual should be able to decide how to distribuite your money. Whether that means donating all your money to cancer research or none of it.

>> No.2945768

>>2945748

>This is an extreme position that disagrees with the reasoning of the vast majority of society
Golden mean fallacy, appeal to majority

>Moreover, there must be some justification for your taking this extreme position, which itself most likely involves the fields of finance or economics.

I learned economics after becoming a libertarian, so my beliefs on taxes did not comes from my beliefs on economics, rather, it was the other way around.

>making even your reasoned arguments inconsistent with the reasoning of normal people.
so you're saying my arguments have some credit but they're too "extreme"

>> No.2945780

>>2945768
Not exactly, your arguments about taxation are absolutely fucking pants on head retarded but your arguments and opinions here (there are really more of the latter than the former) are strongly tainted by your libertarian idiocy, which is for example why you assume that government expenditure is generally wrong. I don't actually give much of a shit about the thread topic I just hate retarded teabagger libertarians.

>> No.2945783
File: 41 KB, 500x372, housepets.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2945783

>>2945751
No. You owe society much of what you're able to accomplish, you're obligated to contribute back to it.

>> No.2945789

>>2945768
>I learned economics after becoming a libertarian, so my beliefs on taxes did not comes from my beliefs on economics, rather, it was the other way around.
So in other words, you already decided what was right, then you searched for evidence to support your beliefs. Good job, anti-scientist.

>> No.2945801

>>2945789
Not only that, it means his thought process was something like "I don't like paying taxes, what political alignment can I pick that hates taxes?"

>> No.2945809

>>2945751
I guess that means road funding shoul dbe completely voluntary which would render roads (and then cars) utterly useless effectively killing trade.

>> No.2945815

>>2945768
I see no golden mean fallacy anywhere in his post...

>> No.2945840

>>2945789
You can't have it both ways. If he thought that A before B is bad, and I showed him that it was actually B before A, and now you're telling me that's also bad. You're assuming I didn't look for evidence that contradicted my beliefs that was
discarded it because it didn't hold weight.

>>2945801
I'm still not old enough to pay taxes, and again, you're assuming something that isn't there.

>>2945809
Private provision of roads has been done before. It can be done again. Your argument is akin to someone in the old sovient union saying this: "But if the government didn't give us food, we'd all starve."

If there's a demand for transportation, then those greedy profit seeking companies will seek to satisfy that demand by providing roads. It's the same as any other good or service.

>> No.2945849

>>2945809
No, because undoubtedly private entrepreneurs would buy, build and maintain the vast majority of the roads that are necessary for economic activity and you would have to pay for the privilege of using these roads yourself when you did so. Which would work out fine, unless you're in a relatively economically insignificant area, or your job or lifestyle requires a large amount of driving, or the roads need maintenance but get the job done, or you're trying to plan out a city, or you're poor in general...

>> No.2945853

>>2945840
no, it's not akin to the food analogy. It's simple: roads are deemed necessary for the public good. The biggest entity to provide that service is the US government, who does it in a fashion that distributes the costs (arguably) equally among road users.

>> No.2945855

>>2945815
>I see no golden mean fallacy anywhere in his post...
>This is an extreme position

I have a position of no taxes, I'm assuming he doesn't agree with 100% taxes. Therefore, he thinks that taxes should be in between those two points. He says that my position is extreme, implying that it's wrong. I think that would qualify as an argument to moderation...

>> No.2945867

>>2945853
It's simple: food is deemed necessary for the public good. The biggest entity to provide that service is the US government, who does it in a fashion that distributes the costs (arguably) equally among food users.

>> No.2945873

>>2945849
We pay for roads now. Only it's a monopoly providing it. Not only that, but people who use roads disproportionately more are being subsidised, because it's being paid for communally. You're paying extra so that 18 wheelers can ruin roads and the people who benefit from that are making money at your expense.

>> No.2945877

>>2945855
Actually, my argument is based on the nihilism you libertarian fucktards are in love with. There is no such thing as a "right" position or a "wrong" position on policy issues. What is "right" is only what is agreed upon as the best solution by the majority of people, as long as it is logically sound. Thus, when almost all of society agrees that paying taxes is justified and you object to this, your opinion matters less than that of the rest of society. It's illogical until you apply nihilism. Note that I am not a nihilist, you faggots are just so self assured that you're absolutely convinced that since nihilism can't be proven wrong (based on how the position itself is constructed) it's true and you're right.

>> No.2945880

Yay!!! Libertarian post in /sci!
>Taxes are immoral because nobody can decide how I spend my money!

I love arguments that build off a basic misunderstanding of the concept of liberty. Here it is folks:

Liberty is the ability of one person to do as he pleases with the restriction that if that action (or inaction) hurts another person, it can be regulated or prohibited. So, you say a government that represents the union that is the people of the United States is not authorized to tax in order to provide funding to promote the sciences because it is immoral, I disagree. Not only would you refusing to authorize your money to be spent on NASA research hurt the whole of mankind and its future, it would damage enormous amounts of positive research and development that is ongoing that consistently improves the standard of living of all people living in the world. So the government, by your own logic, is morally obligated to use force to use "your" money (because we all know possession is just a social construct anyway) for NASA funding because your refusal to do so would be like a punch in the collective face of the world (and America) so fuck you.

>> No.2945886

>>2945873
>Implying those 18 wheelers aren't carrying shit that you end up buying

>> No.2945897

>>2945873
That 18 wheeler pays more in road tax than I do.

>> No.2945902

>>2945873
Competing roadways would be a massive waste of resources and paying to use roads would be an extreme inconvenience. A centralized road system run and funded by the government is much better for society than a privatized one would be.

>> No.2945905

>>2945873
roads are paid for mostly by tax on gasoline.

>use roads more
>use more gas
>pay more tax that pays for the roads

>> No.2945909

Mike Huckerbee is RAHHT,mah fellew Murrikkkern's!!Plannd Barrenhood is tryna keep OWR wimmen frum repradusin AT ALL!!We gotsta put a STOP to themmar evil man-hatin sex-crazed a-handin owt BURF COUNTROAL to OWR wahht wimmen,bah Gawd!!An tha only wey we kin do et iz bah pretendin' we wanna save cullerd an un-wahht fetis's to!Them libbrul's aint smat enuf to figer owt owr plan,bah Gawd!!

>> No.2945927

>>2945877
>Thus, when almost all of society agrees that paying taxes is justified and you object to this, your opinion matters less than that of the rest of society.

So if I lived in the 1800's when people thought slavery justified, my position for the abolition of slavery would have been wrong on the basis that society disagreed with me?

>>2945880
That's not an exact definition of libertarianism and it's why it leads to a weird answer. If I were to define it, it's that violence should not be used against someone who hasn't directly harmed somebody. If I don't pay taxes, I'm not harming someone. If you put me in jail for not paying taxes, that's immoral.

Also, you ignored my point completely about the opportunity cost of funding NASA.

>>2945886
If the 18 wheelers paid for the extra damage they did to roads, the cost would be built in to higher prices of the goods they provide. I'm still subsidizing other people if I buy goods locally I might benefit from a lower price, since what I'm buying has been made more efficiently. Now I'm being forced to subsidize the most inneficient producers..

>> No.2945932

>>2945855
confirmed for full retard

>> No.2945958

>>2945902
So competing food companies would also be a complete waste of resources? Without competition, there's no reason to be efficient.

>>2945905
Point semi-conceded. I'm pretty sure the damage they do to roads is significantly greater than their increase in fuel consumption relative to other cars.

>> No.2945963

>>2945927
Explain what exactly are we missing out by funding a bunch of smart people to do smart things (you would have to include the profits that NASA has allowed through its research, which is alot)

A lack of action can be just as violent as an action. Since there really isn't a thing as inaction, when you fail to feed your children, for instance, you are committing violence upon them. When all the farmland is owned and it can be said that the population cannot always be counted on to find their own ways to feed themselves, when the market fails to provide them jobs, or other such circumstances and they are found with no resources to continue living, those participating in the market are committing an act of violence, even murder against them. Run-on.

>> No.2945995

>>2945927
How much more damage do semi's do to the roads compared to how much more they pay in road tax (they pay more because they don't get great gas mileage).
Give me figures, otherwise you can't prove your point. But if you really want to form your argument against public roads around externalities, you really don't understand "free markets" I mean, if we tried to calculate ALL the costs in everything we do, there are some coal companies that would have to pay for my health care since I live in a city with the dirtiest air in the world.

>> No.2946010

i don't even give a fuck about this thread or nasa, but it has been confirmed for complete idiots.

>derp cars and trucks "damage" roads /herp
>hurp i'm "subsidizing" inefficient products by buying local /derp

seriously, you two are truly fucking dumb.

by far, the vast majority of damage done to roads comes from weather, not use.
local produce should be cheaper and is often times more nutritious due to less chemical sprays used.

>> No.2946027

>>2945963
What are we missing out on? I have no clue. That's the point. By forcing people to spend money on NASA, you don't know if spending money on NASA is the most efficient way to allocate resources. It might be more spent on food, or cancer research or flat screens for all I know.

>A lack of action can be just as violent as an action.

I forgot where I heard of this example but here goes: The coma test.
It assumes that someone who is in a coma can't possibly be immoral. Therefore, if you posit that for example, not paying taxes is immoral, it would fail the coma test, because someone in a coma who doesn't pay taxes isn't immoral. The point of the coma test is that positive moral obligations are just wrong.

>> No.2946028

>>2945958
No. There is reason to be efficient because there is a finite amount of funding which must produce a large amount of product. If the work done is unacceptably poor, then people will likely somehow complain to the politicians in charge, who will then fire the people who are inefficient. You're incredibly fucking retarded for saying that. Like, really, wow. That's definitely one of the most idiotic statements I've seen expressed recently. Also food is extremely different from roadways. If a cheeseburger costs too much you can get something else instead. It is extremely unlikely that there are only a few food options available to you. Food is also greatly affected by personal preference. There is most likely going to be one road that is the best way to get wherever you're going. Your ability to choose does not include preference, only economic costs. Also there's the demand thing. Driving on a freeway in Los Angeles would cost vastly more if it were privately owned than driving in the country. This is a social negative. I don't think I'm going to bother trying to communicate with you any more. I can't believe you seriously just said that competition is the only reason to be efficient. Like, wow, man, that's painfully retarded.

>> No.2946045

>>2946027
But that's retarded, you fucking retard. Someone in a coma isn't earning any money. Someone with no income not paying taxes isn't immoral. If you don't see how this analogy completely fails to address the issue of people paying taxes on money they earn you're fucking stupid.

>> No.2946049

>>2946028
Goverment monopolies only have to provide product to the extent that people won't vote someone out or revolt. Companies have to provide products to the extent that their consumers will switch to another company. Are you seriously saying that waiting 4 years for a vote or revolting is easier than simply buying another brand next time, or using another road tomorrow?

>> No.2946055

>>2946045
I own shares in coke. They pay me dividends. I'm in a coma.

>> No.2946056

>>2946049
>>complain about Walmart all the time, shop there
lol

>> No.2946064

>>2946056
>Complain about taxes/wars/pot being illegal all the time.
>Vote next election thinking it'll be any different.

>> No.2946069

>>2946055
>>2946055
>>It assumes that someone who is in a coma can't possibly be immoral.
well when you make stupid shit assumptions, you come up with stupid shit conclusions.

>> No.2946071

>>2945018
Robert is that you?

>> No.2946076

>>2946069
>Put that guy in a coma in jail! He didn't file taxes this year!

>> No.2946083

>>2946049
If another road would magically appear tomorrow taking me to the exact right place at a reasonable price it'd be wonderful, yes. But given the nature of roads, it's quite unreasonable to apply basic short-term supply and demand to the market.

>> No.2946091

>Yfw you realize if roads were privatized, companies would have monopolies over access to entire towns and cities and charge ludicrous prices just for using them

>> No.2946099

>>2946083
If the price of road A is more than the price of road B + the extra time road B requires, then road B will be used and it will be more efficient. If price of A is less, then A will be used. If there are sufficient profits in roads A and B to justify making another road, then another road will be made to fill the niche. Just because roads are big projects doesn't mean that supply and demand doesn't apply.

>> No.2946102

>>2946076
Someone is in charge of his estate when he is out in a coma. Power of attorney. Deal with it.

And from a religious point of view, everybody is immoral. Even that guy in a coma. So fuck off.

The "coma test" is utterly retarded. Someone in a coma doesn't even have the capacity to make a decision, thereby can't be blamed for them. But in the same thought, he has no estate since immediately upon entering the state of a coma, someone else takes over the decision making authority.

stop being stupid, utterly stupid to defend your train of thought. It derailed somewhere where you lost in the land of nonsense and it's getting worse. When, in order to defend your original argument, you have to rely on this "coma test" to try and prove that inaction can never be immoral, which assumes that the person who fails to act is in the same instant like that person in a coma, you lost.

>> No.2946111

>>2946049
I'm not a communist. Choosing another brand of food or something is a good thing. But you don't just choose another brand of road to use. Someone has to go out and build the road and then charge a low enough price that it is more efficient to use that road than the other considering time investment as well. For there to be true free competition for me to choose, there would be MASSIVE redundancies in the road system, meaning that enough time, capital, and resources were wasted in the process. This is a bad thing for obvious reasons. Also, change doesn't only come every 4 years to things like the road system. If people complain to politicians or whoever has authority over the interstate department or whatever it's called and change is not seen relatively soon then those in charge will ideally be punished or fired. This is of course assuming the government gives a little bit of a shit about addressing the concerns of its constituency at least when it doesn't affect their own personal finances or interests, which is a hell of a lot more reasonable than assuming someone's always going to just come by and build a road immediately when there's a demand for one.
>>2946055
Yay making up bullshit contingencies to justify a stupid analogy!

>> No.2946121

>>2946102
I'm not relying on the coma test for my position. It's just an example.
>From a religious point of view everyone is immoral.
I think I've lost all will to debate with you after reading this.

>> No.2946137

>>2946121
I wasn't basing my argument on it, and you don't have anything else besides the coma test. A person in a coma is very different, from say, a person who fails to feed his children.

>> No.2946154

>>2946121
>>implying your position didn't require an amount of faith based morality.

>> No.2946160

>>2946137
When I choose to make kids, I think I've made an agreement with the kid to feed him and clothe him until he's old enough to provide enough for himself. I have no such agreement with a complete stranger.

>> No.2946163

>>2946160
>I think I've made an agreement
funny that you can say that and then say that it's absolutely unjust for the government to say you have an agreement with society and need to pay taxes

>> No.2946166

>>2946154
>Implying morals can only come from a 2000 year old zombie god.

In case you didn't figure it out, I'm an athiest.

>> No.2946169

>>2946160
really? You mean you didn't align yourself with a constitution which allows the government to tax you for general welfare and promotion of the sciences? Being a citizen is an implied contract, isn't it?

>> No.2946173

>>2946163
I chose to have kids. I didn't choose this government. And don't even say voting matters.

>> No.2946177

>>2946121
... doesn't everyone sin?
anyway, morality isn't a good place to start if you're trying to argue politics. not everyone shares the same morality.
the people in a group will decide on rules which they can agree upon for better coexistence. these laws are != colloquial morality, so please for the love of god stop derailing tax discussion into moral arguments.

>> No.2946179

>>2946166
being an atheist doesn't mean you have shirked all faith based beliefs. You are still human, and most of your "knowledge" rests upon unprovable axioms and assumptions.

>> No.2946183

>>2946169
A citizen is basically an allegiance to a government in exchange for an obligation to protect you. Look it up, the supreme court has ruled over and over that they don't have to protect you from anything.

>> No.2946193

>>2946169
Not that guy, but there's a line somewhere. If you were born a slave according to the law, should you accept that contract? I don't mean to compare paying taxes to slavery, I just want to know what you think about the situation.

>> No.2946197
File: 5 KB, 116x70, girls%2520laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2946197

>mfw the statist has been spamming ad hominems the entire time
>mfw the libtard has been pointing out fallacies but completely ignored the as hominems

>> No.2946199

>>2946173
So there is a real commitment in having a kid that makes paying for him your responsibility, but there's no similar commitment for living and working in society? Nice cognitive dissonance, bro. Also I'm glad you agree with me that due to the nature of roads privatizing them would do a great deal of economic harm to society.

>> No.2946201

>>2946179
I think most people learned in kindergarten that violence isn't a very expedient solution to solve problems. You're saying that it is when it comes to politics? People get put in jail for not paying their yearly extortion fee you know.

>> No.2946202

>>2946173
You don't always choose to have kids, and non of us chose to be born in the country with the idiots in them. None of this removes our social responsibility. If you wish to live under a different set of social rules, you can move to another country. If you find no countries acceptable, you can find an island, live in the forest, find a way into to space or kill yourself. Irregardless, you are still detracting from the original argument,

that inaction can be an act of violence. And neglect of care for your fellow human beings can be immoral.

>> No.2946211
File: 49 KB, 428x410, 1270063114717.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2946211

>>2946202
>Irregardless

>> No.2946218

>>2946197
Come on now, there's nothing wrong with ad hominems as long as they're included with relevant arguments. Although I'm not sure how chanting fundamentalist libertarian catch phrases over and over counts as pointing out logical fallacies, but you folk seem to have your own version of logic anyway.

>> No.2946219

>>2946193
There's always a line. And you weren't born a slave. If you disagree where your tax money goes, then you have a voice. It's called democracy. If you're rich, your voice is louder. If you're poor, it doesn't matter so much. That doesn't at all support taxes as immoral, however.

>> No.2946232

>>2946199
My kid - my choice to have him, my responsibility.
My dog- I choose to get him, my responsibility
A stranger 400 miles from me - You're saying if I don't feed him I should be put in jail. Not the same.

>> No.2946236

>>2946219
At what point does the social contract become immoral? What can society expect from you?

>> No.2946238

>>2946199
You know that Japan's privatized it's major highways a few years back? And it did jack shit to harm their economy?

>> No.2946241

>>2946201
Well, when it comes to politics, violence does actually seem a whole lot more expedient than discussion or really anything else except money.

>> No.2946245

>>2946218
It really discredits your argument when you call the other guy pants on head retarded every other line.

>> No.2946247

>>2946236
see
>>2946177

>> No.2946250

>>2946238
Granting of government monopolies to a private company does not a free market make.

>> No.2946255

>>2946247
What do you personally believe?

>> No.2946260

>>2946250
You're stupid. They broke their highway service into 5 companies. Get the fuck out of here if you're going to refute factual evidence with assumptions that show you know nothing of the issue at hand.

>> No.2946262

>>2946232
It's your choice to continue living where you are and to work in your country. If you don't want to pay taxes, simply stop working in your country for money. It's not a difficult concept. Of course you are still free to make a living. Move to a different country, or perhaps move into the wilderness and sustain yourself there. If you don't use currency, no one is going to tell you to pay taxes. Taxes are the opportunity cost for living and working in society, if you want to avoid that cost you simply need to stop the activities that bring it upon you.

>> No.2946272

Spending on NASA: Good.

Spending on SETI: Bullshit.

Telecommunications are important. Spending time, money and resources on idiocy like searching for aliens or intelligent life is stupid.

If you want to advance humanity then you should focus on genetics, not that irrelevant mumbo jumbo Sagan liked to preach about. What a waste of good money.

>> No.2946273

>>2946232
I'm saying if you participate in a system that you know fails to meet the physical needs of people in your own country to live (or world) and they die as a result, you are committing acts of violence upon them. For instance, you paid taxes, your tax money was used in a number of immoral contingency operations to defend your cheap consumption of oil. You have committed acts of violence. You fail to pay taxes which are used to help feed people (and their families) who are underpaid and underemployed but whose services you benefit from: immoral.

>> No.2946279

>>2946260
Government granted oligopoly with no threat at all of future competition from outside firms.* Sorry.

>> No.2946283

>>2946245
The fucker said that there's no reason to be efficient outside of competition. I knew damn well that he had phrased that badly and I was drawing attention to this because for him to even make such a statement requires an extremely misled worldview.

>> No.2946289

>>2946262
If you build your own house from scratch on unowned land without using currency transactions, or any transactions for that matter, by gathering materials yourself, the government will still levy a property tax on you.

>> No.2946294

>I'm saying if you participate in a system that you know fails to meet the physical needs of people in your own country to live (or world) and they die as a result, you are committing acts of violence upon them

By this logic you are commiting acts of violence of everyone who dies on the planet. I'm guessing you should be put in jail as a result.

>> No.2946295

>>2946289
The solution is clear: Move to the Moon.

>> No.2946302

>>2946279
Except they're publicly traded companies who can then break off into smaller companies, sell their ownership to startups, etc.

Your move, assdick.

>> No.2946303

You know what, my own statements are not making sense anymore and I'm tired. I'm convinced you failed yourself at the coma statement. I see your points, but I reject them. I believe NASA funding is important enough to garner forced tax collection to obtain funding for them. At least that money doesn't go to killing people or stealing resources (directly)

>> No.2946312

>>2946295
But how? The government monopolizes space travel. You are bound by a social contract you did not agree to and there is nothing you can do about it. You are enslaved.

>> No.2946322

>>2946303
I'd rather see trillion of dollars go to nasa than the pentagon, but I would still rather see people being able to decide where their money goes.

>> No.2946330

>>2946312
>The government monopolizes space travel.

Private space companies don't exist in your world?

>> No.2946334

>>2945840

>I'm still not old enough to pay taxes

Underage ban.

>> No.2946337

>>2946294
pretty much. That's why it's so important for us to develop an environment that promotes a decent work ethic while not overworking and underpaying populations while at the same time providing for people who are in rough spots and need temporary assistance (or permanent assistance if the case requires)

>> No.2946344

>>2945002

The simple truth is that the market is not willing to fund theoretical research. There is no profit in the immediate future from studying rocks on Mars. That doesn't change the fact that it's a vital endeavour.

>> No.2946359

>>2946322
see (I really should be going to bed soon but can't stop) I agree that people should be allowed to make their own decisions. Where I diverge from you is I don't think people should be allowed to make stupid decisions. If you allow everything to run voluntarily without some sort of central authority, people would act in their own short term self interest which would fuck us over in the long term. People are irrational, and that's why we have governing authorities who debate about what is the best decision. Unfortunately, half the time these bodies don't know what the fuck to do either. Blind leading the blind, but better than a country full of chiefs and no indians.

>> No.2946379

>>2946344
Theoretical research can be very profitable. When breakthroughs in technology occur is it because of theoretical research.

If there was no profit in something then why would I do it?
Those smart people at nasa could be designing more efficient cars or making new drugs, instead as you put it, they're studying rocks.

>> No.2946380

>>2946302
They were created regionally so they're essentially regional monopolies with enough government subsidies and regulations that calling them truly privatized is hyperbolic. Moreover, the Japanese highway system has been toll-based since it was started, meaning people did directly pay based on highway use, rather than the US' mostly gas tax-based system.

>> No.2946383

>>2946330
The government outlawed them in 2013.

>> No.2946390

>>2946379
There are already lots of people in publicly funded research universities developing solutions to our energy problems.

>> No.2946393

>>2946359
If people are irrational, then why would you centralize power in the hands of irrational people? Though you kind of conceded this point, so I'm confused lol

>> No.2946408

>>2946379

This is basic economics. If you have a small chance of a large payoff in the far future for an agent with a finite lifespan, you're going to get suboptimal investment. Do the maths.

And studying those rocks adds more to human welfare than making a bigger car to drag your obese family around. Launching the first satellites had no economic benefit whatsoever. Had they never been launched we would not have satellite communication today. Stop being a myopic git.

>> No.2946409

Also
>I agree that people should be allowed to make their own decisions. Where I diverge from you is I don't think people should be allowed to make stupid decisions.

That's kind of like saying that you like free speech, except for stupid people lol

>> No.2946412

>>2946393
I'm going to sleep, so I'll leave it at that.

>> No.2946494

Tell me how awesome private road companies are when you are paying $50 to drive to work everyday and the company does shit maintenance to maximize profit and you have no choice because they own all the roads in your town.

While not everything should be provided for by taxes there are some things that should. No taxes would do nothing but destroy our society, same as 100% taxes would.

As for NASA, they spur and develop technological breakthroughs that benefit society. Manned spaceflight is needed to access the ISS and to do repairs on unmanned items in space (such as Hubble) and to save our sorry asses when Earth is fucked and is necessary for in the future when you want to buy that cool awesome thing that you choose to buy with your fantastic free will that can only be made from a mineral found on Titan.

>> No.2946555

OP the simple answer is: because somebody has to do it.

Private companies aren't going to put the money forward until they know there is a profit to be made. So we as a society fund the research science that makes the discoveries, then afterward private companies take advantage of said discoveries to make a profit.

Also man has been "paying taxes" since the dawn of his existence. People didn't hunt and gather as a group for fun, they did it because if they put in a little bit of time (this was their tax, time and effort) it paid off massively for the group they were part of in terms of more readily available food, shelter, etc. .

Your only difference is instead of directly putting in time/effort to every cause, you are giving a portion of your money to help get these better conditions/products for yourself and the group you are a part of.