ISS to be privatized

[Anonymous No.9508214]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/02/11/the-trump-administration-wants-to-turn-the-international-space-station-into-a-commercially-run-venture/?utm_term=.078e32495bda

> The Trump administration wants to turn the International Space Station into a kind of orbiting real estate venture run not by the government, but by private industry.

> The White House plans to stop funding the station after 2024, ending direct federal support of the orbiting laboratory. But it does not intend to abandon the orbiting laboratory altogether and is working on a transition plan that could turn the station over to the private sector, according to an internal NASA document obtained by The Washington Post.

> “The decision to end direct federal support for the ISS in 2025 does not imply that the platform itself will be deorbited at that time — it is possible that industry could continue to operate certain elements or capabilities of the ISS as part of a future commercial platform,” the document states. “NASA will expand international and commercial partnerships over the next seven years in order to ensure continued human access to and presence in low Earth orbit.”

[Anonymous No.9508219]

We warned you the republicans are anti-science.

We told you.

Everything that is going to happen will be your fault.

[Anonymous No.9508226]

this has been planned for a loooong time. ISS is getting old. It's a shame that actual discussion will be hampered by who's in the Whitehouse.

[Anonymous No.9508242]

>>9508214
> Washington Post
Pffft HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHA

[Anonymous No.9508253]

>>9508214
But America doesn't own it.

[Anonymous No.9508255]

>>9508214
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/02/11/the-trump-administration-wants-to-turn-the-international-space-station-into-a-commercially-run-venture/?utm_term=.078e32495bda
any non-fake news links?

[Anonymous No.9508262]

>>9508255
'ol Fousty is the best when it comes to space news.
http://spacenews.com/nasa-budget-proposal-plans-of-nasa-funding-of-iss-seeks-commercial-transition/?utm_content=buffer41182&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Anonymous No.9508275]

>>9508255
https://www.stripes.com/news/trump-administration-wants-to-turn-international-space-station-into-commercially-run-venture-1.511198
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-international-space-station-20180211-story.html
http://spacenews.com/nasa-budget-proposal-plans-of-nasa-funding-of-iss-seeks-commercial-transition/

[Anonymous No.9508285]

>>9508262
>>9508275
Fake.

[Anonymous No.9508295]

>>9508214
Wa Poo is saying it, so that's a good reason to think it isn't true.

[Anonymous No.9508308]

>>9508285
are you trying to be a retard or does it just come naturally?

the budget proposal and committee hearings are free to view by anyone. Or is the entire US government also a CGI trick?

[Anonymous No.9508324]

>>9508285
>how to trigger /sci/ with one word

[Anonymous No.9508334]

>>9508295
see: >>9508308

[Anonymous No.9508336]

>>9508308
> the budget proposal and committee hearings are free to view by anyone.
And you have to be the most retarded soychugging brainlet imaginable to think that those proposals have anything to do with what is actually going to happen. It's fiction put out for public consumption while the real decisions all happen behind closed doors. But go right ahead and keep believing the shit that the MSM is shoveling in your mouth like a good goy.

[Anonymous No.9508356]

explain to me how privatization is a bad thing. the private sector is always more efficient than the government

[Anonymous No.9508360]

>>9508219
> republicans are anti-science
> meanwhile the dims still deny the mountains of evidence that show how huge racial differences are in favor of their politically correct fantasies of "equality"

[Anonymous No.9508365]

>>9508219
says the brainlet while simultaneously choking on Elon Musk's cock.

[Anonymous No.9508374]

>>9508214
so it's gonna be the Trump Orbital Hotel now?

[Anonymous No.9508376]

>>9508336
hol' up, so you actually think that the whole US government is a sham front for a deep state network of evil globalists? holy shit, I thought you guys were just trolls but you sound genuine. please get help.

oh and,

>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.9508395]

kekistan is overtaking the universe!
Hail KeK

[Anonymous No.9508400]

>>9508376
> muh /pol/ boogieman

[Anonymous No.9508416]

>>9508400
where else should one be >>'d to if they think that video'd senate hearings, budget propositions, and an article by Jeff fucking' Foust are fake news?

seriously. It's just dumb and (oh I've always wanted to use this word) "slides" the thread to blanket the sources proved as bogus.

[Anonymous No.9508424]

>>9508376
>so you actually think that the whole US government is a sham front for a deep state network of evil globalists?
nice strawman you got there freindo. All he said was was that decisions happen behind closed doors. Do you really think that the discourse for the budget only takes place during publicly broadcasted meetings?

[Anonymous No.9508472]

>>9508424
uh yes, that's the whole point. When's the last time a NASA budget ≠ the NASA budget shown to the world through the public hearings and such?

and no, "muh Rickover" is not a valid answer.


why the hell do you think this news is fake anyways? ISS has been tentatively planned to be phased out in exchange for commercial stations for over a decade. Trump or no Trump this was going to happen.

[Anonymous No.9508503]

>>9508214
>be ISS
>old as fuck shitbox
>absolutely every part is rundown and outdated
>significant amounts of astronaut time is dedicated to maintenance
>get sold to private businesses for billions anyway
anyone that complains about this is a retard
the ISS has outrun it's usefulness, and should be replaced with a new station with modern equipment

[Anonymous No.9508512]

That's cute but half of the station belongs to Russia and 6 out of 10 modules in "American" sector are owned by ESA and JAXA

[Anonymous No.9508519]

>>9508503
not to mention the quarter of a billion a year we spend to maintain it's stupid orbit choice. It should be 4x higher up in a 28 degree orbit, not a 51 degree one.

[Anonymous No.9508570]

>>9508360
>the dims
>politicized science
average redneck iq desu

[Anonymous No.9508581]

>>9508360
>Muh dims
>Statistics=science
Off the internet and back to your caravan, trash

[Anonymous No.9508589]

>>9508472
Can you read?
BUDGET IS NEGOTIATED PRIOR TO THE MEETING. THE MEETING IS A CONFIRMATION OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.

[Anonymous No.9508603]

Why should I be mad? Let some rich people have fun with it before it will end up as a huge shooting star in the nightsky.

[Anonymous No.9508609]

>>9508589
...and? you stated that the real decisions are made behind closed doors. but then you state that these decisions are made public in the meeting. What are you arguing for? all I'm saying is that it's grade-a stupidity to not believe a SpaceNews article about future plans for the ISS, as that article got it's information from a combination of primary government sources and public hearings.

[Anonymous No.9508680]

>>9508214

this is a good thing

ISS is outdated and by 2025 we will have much better and cheaper commercial stations

https://bigelowaerospace.com/

https://www.axiomspace.com/

[Anonymous No.9508756]

>>9508680
bagel is announcing something cool soon too. thread about it up right now

[Anonymous No.9508998]

>>9508400
>posts strawmen cartoons
Yep, definitely from /pol/.

[Anonymous No.9509034]

>>9508998
it's easy to find actual pol boogymen because they post about how pol boogymen don't exist. Pretty funny

[Anonymous No.9509054]

>>9508360
>immediately replying with the pseudo shit about race

So fucking predictable, unironically kill yourself

[Anonymous No.9509059]

>>9508400
you're not helping your case

[Anonymous No.9509078]

did anyone even read the article? its a good idea that has probably been planned for a long time now, trump is just giving the final approval.

[Anonymous No.9509094]

>>9509078
this was mentioned in the 3rd post, and by a few people thereafter.

Politics get in the way of everything nowadays due to ol' trumpy

[Anonymous No.9509195]

>>9508360
republicans deny this too.

[Anonymous No.9509204]

>>9508356
>the private sector is always more efficient than the government
no

[Anonymous No.9509227]

>>9508219
Space has nothing to do with science and everything to do with engineering and capitalism.

[Anonymous No.9509242]

>>9509227
space allowed us to:

1)discover most of the technological materials that we use in the modern day including blood removing machines and medical tehcnology of all kinds

2)understand how the universe works in telescopes and stuff, and when the universe was forme,d ravitational waves and all

3)confirmation of hte relativity was confirmed via satellites gps which slow down time because of speed of light

shall i go on humillating you or you done enoguh?

[Anonymous No.9509255]

>>9508214
Since it was originally going to be deorbited, due to funding, this is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.9509266]

>>9509242
>implying he has enough self awareness to feel humiliated

[Anonymous No.9509276]

>>9509242
i've never seen such a true and correct statement put in such a retarded and autistic way

[Anonymous No.9509284]

>>9508214
>after 2024
These plans have been around since at least 2014-15 since I remember reading about it (and about how russians want to keep their central modules in a new smaller station) way before the 2016 presiential campaign began.
I'm also pretty sure the station was planned to be deorbited by around that time since it's getting way too old.

[Anonymous No.9509289]

>>9508219
Here's my counterpoint:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY

[Anonymous No.9509300]

>>9509054
>hehe if i deny that language can be used to refer to particular partitions of humanity in any academic setting no one will be able to make me face facts i don't like
>this won't prevent me from using those those same partitions at any other time, including when advocating for preferential treatment on the basis of statistics, though
are you seriously this intellectually dishonest or just retarded?

[Anonymous No.9509309]

>>9509204
Explain. Things like this are only efficient if they need to be efficient. Does the government need to spend money effectively? No, of course not. What are you going to do, stop paying them? Have you ever tried boycotting the government? Because that is a felony. Public opinion is valuable in politics, but it isn't that fucking valuable. The government only needs to do thing well to the extent that we don't revolt, which isn't a high bar for excellence at all.

[Anonymous No.9509434]

>>9509309
A few examples. ISS would have never been built by private industry cause it would never be profitable. Govt is more efficient at delivering clean drinking water, while private industry is more efficient at delivering mountain dew

[Anonymous No.9509458]

>>9508219
I guess will should nationalize the Ivy league if only governmental institutions can contribute to science.

[Anonymous No.9509468]

so basically trump will sell out a space station to the jews correct ?
cant say im surprised

[Anonymous No.9509476]

>>9508219
>Republicans was to preserve the ISS
>Dems was to destroy it in a blaze of fire by letting it burn up in the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.9509477]

>>9508214
FWIW, the end of the planned life of ISS predates Trump, as does the idea that somebody else might want to take it and keep it going.

[Anonymous No.9509503]

>>9509434
I thought we were talking about efficiency here. The government does things that wouldn't happen without government. Yes, good job, this is why we have government. But we don't typically ask for government to do things that industry is capable of doing, because we all know (or at least we should know) that government would do a really shit job at doing those things and it wouldn't make sense. When it comes to space it isn't totally black or white: industry can and does invest a lot of money in real research, just not all kinds. And there certainly is incentive for industry to do science in space, just not all the kinds of science we want and not enough to justify building the rockets. So if you don't like the idea of giving away the ISS maybe name the research project you are sad isn't going to happen anymore. Don't talk about efficiency because the fact that government wastes resources isn't up for debate.

[Anonymous No.9509515]

First off this is probably fake lol. But second the ISS was going to be defunded anyways by 2024 so why not make some profit off of it in its last few years. Republicans are not antiscience, they are the ones that keep funding NASA. They also allow private space companies.

[Anonymous No.9509554]

The ISS is getting old, we maybe can get a few extra years from it, but I belive it would be better if we retired it and retrived as much as we can from it for study back to earth and simply build a new station.

[Anonymous No.9509563]

>>9508503
It can still be useful if we bring it or atleast parts back to earth so we can study it.

[Anonymous No.9509605]

>>9509054
The worst part about the kind of social "science" that attempts to prove equality is that it first tries to find excuses for those who are traditionally viewed in an unfavorable light.
It assumes equality, then attempts to find reasons to justify phenomena, when real science is about observing a phenomena, then investigate why it happened.
Therein lies the infallibility that has inflated what would traditionally be considered social commentary into the realm of academic value. By collectively agreeing on crockpot hypotheses regarding what cannot be replicated and experimented upon, it feigns a legitimacy reminiscent of theological explanations for the physical world. The worst part of all this isn't some misappropriation of resources from some kind of ubermensch project, but rather that these ideals fail even to achieve its own goal of elevating those they view as oppressed.
Which is fine. Whatever the value of these attempts at integrated society are, they'll be evaluated real fucking soon against the homogeneous does-not-give-a-fuck state known as china. We'll see how it goes - as real science goes.

[Anonymous No.9509606]

>>9509554
That would be true if there wasn't any doubt we could build a replacement. As it is, a replacement station probably isn't coming - when the ISS shuts down then Tiangong-2 will be the only human presence in orbit. That makes it important to try to keep the lights on in the ISS for as long as possible.

[Anonymous No.9509670]

>>9508360
I actually work in science, and espousing this kind of view will get you fired because a) it's bullshit, and b) it's awful.

The only reason you think there's 'mounds of evidence' and some kind of scientific consensus is because you browse this website, when in reality the majority of people who post on this board have no scientific background.

[Anonymous No.9509686]

>>9509458
>being this retarded

our federal government endows the ivy league with approximately double the amount of money that NASA gets

[Anonymous No.9509698]

>>9509686
and NASA wastes every penny they get

[Anonymous No.9509699]

>>9509698
real quick question - literally what do you know about anything that makes you equipped to say that?

[Anonymous No.9509721]

>>9509503
>maybe name the research project you are sad isn't going to happen anymore
basically all of them. private industry has no incentive to do research on a space station. turning over the ISS to them would be a huge clusterfuck to accomplish and it would be awful to turn over taxpayer property (worth billions or trillions) to private companies. if they want to contact out more ISS operations then fine go for it, but it would probably be easier to just have them create a new one eventually
>Don't talk about efficiency because the fact that government wastes resources isn't up for debate.
just depends on your defition of efficiency. and don't forget private sector wastes insane amounts of resources on bullshit (junk food, advertising, transformers movies, etc). they are really great at being efficient at doing shit that is worthless in the first place

[Anonymous No.9509725]

>>9509721
research on a space station is a fucking meme, and nothing they've gotten is worth shit

[Anonymous No.9509740]

>>9509725
oh, so you're a pleb, nevermind

[Anonymous No.9509749]

>>9509686
An important question to ask though is whether or not they need public money in order to have incentive to fund science. So the schools found a way to raid the public treasury without upsetting people like you. Great, but don't those schools actually have a real incentive to keep their reputation? And aren't these rich as fuck institutions more than capable of covering the cost themselves? Realistically, how much research do you think would actually lose funding if the government stopped giving away money to schools? The schools still need most of that research to happen one way or another. They can afford it and it's in their best interest. You don't need to be a libertarian for this one, it really is the textbook case of when the free market can actually do something right.

[Anonymous No.9509750]

Are there any concepts of replacements of the ISS? Like a really fucking big space station.

[Anonymous No.9509754]

>>9508242
>>>
> Anonymous 02/11/18(Sun)14:20:08 No.9508255▶>>9508262 >>9508275
>>>9508214 (OP)
go back to /pol/ cunt

[Anonymous No.9509767]

>>9509749
>An important question to ask though is whether or not they need public money in order to have incentive to fund science

Yes, 100%, because science is rarely profitable and the discoveries that do produce hundred-billion-dollar industries are the product of a long line of decades and decades of grant-funded research that never made it to market.

Your libertarian 'give it to the free market' approach would mean that transistors, MRI machines, DNA sequencing, and a whole host of other extremely-profitable technologies just straight-up wouldn't exist. Private entities do not fund research that takes 70 years to harvest profit from.

>Realistically, how much research do you think would actually lose funding if the government stopped giving away money to schools?

My lab would disappear, along with most of the other ones in my building. I don't know your background in science, but public grants are a really big deal. Barring that, erasing the federal endowment system means essentially a complete hiring freeze on tenure-track faculty and probably massive layoffs.

In other words, killing public funding would be literally the worst thing in the history of American scientific research. It would singlehandedly propel China and Japan to the forefront of technological innovation within less than a decade, and signal the destruction of American innovation and ingenuity, and I mean that in the least hyperbolic terms possible.

[Anonymous No.9509777]

>>9509767
good post is good

[Anonymous No.9509784]

>>9509725
retard
that's its primary function, literally no other reason to make one if you're not using it for research.

[Anonymous No.9509790]

>>9509721
> private industry won't use space station for research
Then exactly what do you think they would be purchasing it for? It doesn't have other uses. It's a research vessel. If what you say is true, then no one will buy it and you can relax knowing that the station will instead burn up in the atmosphere. Let's stick to speculating on the outcome that someone does end up purchasing it, shall we? In which case, you should assume that a company wanting a research station in space is planning on using it for research, or more likely, facilitating it. Likely what will end up happening is it will get rented out to scientists from around the globe.
> depends on how you define efficiency
I define it the way everyone defines it: bang for buck. Ranting about how lame consumer culture is, which by the way is subjective, doesn't mean anything to me. Government gets very little bang for buck, because it doesn't have to. It can do the same job for 10 million, 100 million, doesn't matter because all it needs is a loan from the FED or charge more to the taxpayer. When a business overspends and has to raises prices, it loses business. But when government overspends and has to raise taxes, the government loses no business because not paying taxes is illegal. So no matter what the government does, even if it's useful, will be done at a high cost. Whereas business, even if it's producing something you consider worthless (again, subjective), it does it at a relatively low cost.

[Anonymous No.9509807]

>>9509767
> science is rarely profitable
Ok so you didn't actually read my comment at all did you? Schools have a reputation to keep. Them conducting the amount of research that they do is the reason people consider them good investments. So it is profitable, which was the point of my original comment that you ignored. Will I need to make that point a third time or can you try to not write an essay about things I never said?
I will make the point again just in case: (1) yes, a shit ton of research is funded by the government. (2) schools make a fuck ton of money. (3) schools make a fuck ton of money because people pay them for education. (4) people go to those schools for an education because they have attracted excellent faculty with their research opportunities. (5) the reason schools get a shit ton of money is from their research (6) schools could make a profit funding their own research to the same degree they do now and there is no need for government.

[Anonymous No.9509808]

>>9509790
nobody is going to purchase it because that would be the worst investment of all time. the only way it would come under private ownership is if it was given away for basically pennies

>bang for buck
how much bang are we getting with the junk food and advertising industries?
i agree that govt is typically higher cost and industry is lower cost, although there are exceptions like drinking water. my main point is that government typically focuses on doing shit that is actually important while industry wastes huge amounts of money on total bullshit that gives no real benefit to society. when govt wastes its inefficiency but when industry wastes its by design

[Anonymous No.9509820]

>>9509790
>I define it the way everyone defines it: bang for buck.
That's not even a definition, that's a motivation.

[Anonymous No.9509824]

>>9509807
>Them conducting the amount of research that they do is the reason people consider them good investments.

'People' isn't the private sector. Businesses do not shell out hundred-million-dollar research grants for PR purposes - any CEO that does that will be immediately expunged by the board of directors. Sure, Harvard is a highly respectable institution, but can you think of any businesses that will line up to shell out $33bil to support their research, most of which is irrelevant to industry?

>So it is profitable, which was the point of my original comment that you ignored.

I work in research. 99%+ of the papers published by my institution will result in exactly $0.00 of added market productivity. The purpose of scientific research is to gain more knowledge, not to turn a profit, and the industries that do come from science need decades of what's essentially welfare payments before you get a golden egg from the process.

>schools make a fuck ton of money
>schools make a fuck ton of money because people pay them for education

Not at all compared to their endowments. Tuition and fundraising are generally less than a quarter of what major research schools receive from the government.

For instance, student population of MIT is about 11,000. Total fees for a typical undergrad with no stipends (which isn't the typical MIT student), is $58k/yr. That works out to $638m, which is only 4.3% of what MIT receives from the government.

I'll repeat that - 4.3 percent.

Keep in mind that the students and research who come from this school have created economic productivity equal to that of a country ranked #7 in the world by GDP. That's a small fraction of the economic damages you'd cause by privatizing science.

>the reason schools get a shit ton of money is from their research

Again, not really. When's the last time you purchased a computer that has a university's sticker on it? Or a drug that has the discoverer's lab logo on the bottle?

[Anonymous No.9509829]

>>9509824
>Again, not really. When's the last time you purchased a computer that has a university's sticker on it? Or a drug that has the discoverer's lab logo on the bottle?

Let me rephrase that last bit for clarity - I ran out of characters towards the end. University research /is/ where their money comes from, but that's largely from the government and partially from private donors.

But it's not like MIT keeps all the intellectual property that comes from their research - when one of their labs comes up with a new way to treat a disease or build a microchip, that information is generally used by a business completely separate from the institution that discovered it.

The reason the US government likes to fund universities is because these spin-off industries are highly lucrative and keep Americans employed. But it's not a closed-loop process. The colleges do not reap the benefits from research - society does. The government exists as the missing piece in the loop, whereby taxes paid by people who benefit from scientific research is funneled partially back into the process.

[Anonymous No.9510015]

>>9509686
That's not even remotely the point. The Ivy League is privately owned and managed, and yet they are able to use their private resources in combination with government funding and incentivization to make unparalleled scientific achievements.

They're a shining example of why REGULATED privatization of scientific resources is not inherently detrimental to science or anti-science policy.

[Anonymous No.9510019]

>>9510015
>They're a shining example of why REGULATED privatization of scientific resources is not inherently detrimental to science or anti-science policy.

I do agree with that - but people in this thread seem to hold a way less moderate view of 'privatization'.

[Anonymous No.9510243]

>>9509808
> government mostly spends money on important things
> when government wastes it's just inefficiency
So this is perhaps off topic but just for fun why don't you make a list of things that you think it's ok for the government to do. Then look at what the US government does and tell me if even half the lists match. It seems like everyone I talk to has a million things they hate about how the government works and what it is doing but everyone says the same thing you do. Historically, it just doesn't make any sense. The government has routinely stomped on its citizens and it still does. It's illegal to feed the homeless in most cities for Christ sake, and if the police think you own a plant they will raid your house, shoot your dog, and are legally allowed to steal all your shit even if they don't find anything. This behavior is encouraged in most states. Prisoners are often put in solitary confinement, something every expert agrees is a very cruel torture. It's kind of funny, we used to justify entire wars against countries that tortured their people on labor camps. So, all of this is just waste right? Not by design? Speaking of Wars, that's ultimately what most of the money actually gets used for. Since you insisted that the government tends to spend on mostly important things, unlike the private sector, I thought it would be useful to point out that most of it is used for war. Again, this is off topic and I'm not taking about research spending anymore. I just don't understand this optimism people have in their government. The government does a lot more harm for both our society and societies elsewhere than McDonald's. McDonald's doesn't bomb people, or demand that 1/4 of all jobs require a license, or execute black people in the middle of the street. The evil shit government's do, and get away with, is just on a whole other level compared to what you are complaining that companies do. Advertising and junk food? Come on...

[Anonymous No.9510244]

>>9508214
>> The Trump administration wants to turn the International Space Station into a kind of orbiting real estate venture run not by the government, but by private industry.
This is a good idea.

>>9508219
>We warned you the republicans are anti-science.
Democracts are anti-science because they DON'T want to privatize the space station.

[Anonymous No.9510246]

>>9508219
>We warned you the republicans are anti-science.
K I L L


Y O U R
S E L F
Privatizing space is the ONLY solution. It will rapidly increase scientific discoveries and space exploration. Privatization is the fucking best.
Fuck monopolies.
Fuck leftists.

[Anonymous No.9510247]

>>9509204
>no
But it's objectively true though.
Are you a leftist?

[Anonymous No.9510249]

>>9509434
>Govt is more efficient at delivering clean drinking water, while private industry is more efficient at delivering mountain dew
Private industry is banned from providing drinking water you idiot.

[Anonymous No.9510250]

>>9509721
>just depends on your defition of efficiency. and don't forget private sector wastes insane amounts of resources on bullshit (junk food, advertising, transformers movies, etc). they are really great at being efficient at doing shit that is worthless in the first place
without the private sector you would be living in a mud hut and make 100 dollars a year.

[Anonymous No.9510251]

>>9510243
This most is extremely underrated.
Libtards/leftists are basically violent psychopaths masquerading as noble intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.9510252]

>>9509820
I know this is sci and I shouldn't assume people have a science background but "bang for buck" is a pretty good description of what efficiency literally means in a scientific context, so I have no idea what you are in about. What do you mean when you talk about efficiency? Is it anything remotely similar to what the rest of the English speaking world mean? Because the rest of us are talking about the fraction of your input you get back out of whatever the context is.

[Anonymous No.9510256]

>>9510252
>trying to argue with a leftist

[Anonymous No.9510346]

>>9510246
>Privatization is the fucking best.
>Fuck monopolies.
yeah privatization and monopolies never go hand in hand, stupid leftists xD

[Anonymous No.9510354]

>>9510243
>It's illegal to feed the homeless in most cities for Christ sake
u wot?
Around here it's illegal to give them money if they're beggin in the streets, yeah, but that's precisely because you should be giving money to some shelter that will actually use it to buy food.

Giving money to hobos is dumb, they'll just use it to sabotage themselves with cheap booze.

[Anonymous No.9510359]

>>9510346
>yeah privatization and monopolies never go hand in hand
They don't.
Oh BOY would I love to destroy you shit eating leftists on this subject.
Name one monopoly that has not been the result of government intervention.

inb4 standard oil or debeers

leftists are brainlets and brainwashed

[Anonymous No.9510362]

>>9510243
Sorry, but how many people are dying/dead from the opioid or obesity epidemic in America?

Sure, I mean the Government are partly to blame too but most of the responsibility lies in the hands of corporations.

Was it lack of Government intervention which caused it? Probably. You don't see the opioid epidemic in countries with better medical regulations.

[Anonymous No.9510365]

>>9510359

Leftists are brainwashed?

Need I remind you which party's supporters believe in sky daddies?

[Anonymous No.9510382]

>>9510362
>corporashuns are to blame for what some humans will do naturally
you're an idiot

>Was it lack of Government intervention which caused it? >Probably.
No, somehumans will naturally do shit like this.
A free market would have support groups and a competent medical system to deal with this.

The government ALREADY bans opiods you stupid idiot.
Clearly their policies aren't working.

What is your solution?
Being more aggressive with the war on drugs?
Liberals are legit fascists.

[Anonymous No.9510384]

>>9510365
>Need I remind you which party's supporters believe in sky daddies?
Yes.
Leftists do. Their daddy is Karl Marx.
Leftists don't even believe in evolution and thinks all humans are exactly the same.

also
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.9510392]

>guys SpaceX is amazing, literally going to take humanity to the stars
>what, DRUMPF wants to make the ISS more like SpaceX thumbs DOWN

[Anonymous No.9510398]

>>9510382
>No, somehumans will naturally do shit like this.
Not just some, 1/3 of Americans are obese. That is not just "some people".

>A free market would have support groups and a competent medical system to deal with this.
No, this was caused by corporations pushing highly addictive drugs, probably knowing the long-term implications.

Do you even know much about the causes of the epidemic? The fact that fake studies were used to justify the increases in prescribed opioids or maybe the fact that doctors were encouraged to give them to patients more as they were incentivized with cash.

How could a free market stop this?

>The government ALREADY bans opiods you stupid idiot.
>Clearly their policies aren't working.

It's nothing to do with the drugs being illegal! These are prescription drugs which have got people hooked, then they turn to heroin.

The war of drugs is stupid as fuck too. It's not solving any problems at all.

If you can't see there are huge issues with the American system then you are blind. Why is the opioid epidemic self-contained in America?

Why is America (and New Zealand) the only countries which allow prescription drug advertisements?

Why are doctors incentivized to prescribe drugs by pharmaceutical companies?

Do you think these would have played into the opioid epidemic? Do you think the government restrictions in other countries might be why they don't have this epidemic?

[Anonymous No.9510400]

>>9510398
none of those would be problems if people would just take personal responsibility for their own safety

[Anonymous No.9510404]

>>9510400
People are animals.

This is the problem. The one fact people hate to really think about. People aren't these beings of divine free will, they're just pretty smart animals.

I wonder how much self-control you really have.

[Anonymous No.9510408]

>>9510404
cool philosophy bro

[Anonymous No.9510409]

>>9509829
Ok so, again, most of that isn't at all what I am taking about. I am not talking about research being used for industry, I am talking about pure science and the incentives for an institution to do pure science regardless of industry. So you claim that private spending on school isn't enough to cover their research, but you should at least recognize that all of the business a school receives from the private sector is totally dependent on their reputation as a scientific institution, with expert scientists as their faculty, who they were only able to hire by offering them opportunities to do real/pure/non-industry-motivated research. The idea that the private sector can only fund research if it results in a sellable product within a few years just isn't true. A school that doesn't do real research (yes, real research that isn't oriented in turning a profit) will fail. So you also said that the school wouldn't be capable of covering the costs of all the research it needs to do without the government. This obviously depends on the school, some will be successful and others will fail. But for a school to be as successful as the top institutions it needs to have faculty who are respected in their field, and demonstrate their expertise through research. A school as successful as these needs to be able to fund the same amount of research whether government helps or not, otherwise they just won't be that successful. So you say that the non-government money that MIT gets just isn't enough, so in my scenario most of their research loses funding. But what happens next? What happens next is all of the faculty leave the institution and start working at a university that figured out a way to cover the cost. Universities that can't do research without government fail, and universities that can succeed.

[Anonymous No.9510411]

>>9510409
consider the following

[Anonymous No.9510412]

>>9510354
> but that's because...
how about I use my money however I want and you stop excusing the literal criminalization of altruism you fuck

[Anonymous No.9510415]

>>9510412
>virgin being intimidated into giving booze money to a chad hobo is now altruism

[Anonymous No.9510418]

>>9510412
>if i signal my virtues on 4chan.org girls will want to ride my dee

[Anonymous No.9510420]

>>9510415
So you believe that homeless people shouldn't be given money. Now explain to me how that belief somehow translates to me not being able to use my money however I want. I have to right to give a million hobos cash, it's my money. Fuck it, il buy a hobo booze and cocain if I want to. Don't like it? Good, not your money or your problem go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.9510421]

>>9510420

[Anonymous No.9510424]

>>9510420
>why can I just not shit in the streets, I mean come on it's my hard earned fecal matter, I can do whatever I want
Because those streets were not built for your sole benefit. By giving money to hobo you are creating an incentive and are thus responsible for filling the city center with gypsies and punks with dogs.

[Anonymous No.9510426]

>>9510420
If you were a christian, you'd know the sin of sloth, is what got them there

[Anonymous No.9510427]

>>9510421
except everything about that sign has been proven false, in regards to birds at least.

[Anonymous No.9510428]

>>9510427
ah, so you have just stopped thinking then. neat.

[Anonymous No.9510431]

>>9510398
>Not just some, 1/3 of Americans are obese. That is not just "some people".
1/3 of americans are not obese you fucking idiot.
Try having actual arguments next time.

>No
YES!!!
kys

>this was caused by corporations pushing highly addictive drugs
HAHAHAHAHAHA
It's hilarious you think people wouldn't have created these drugs on their own.
Also corporations created these drugs so people can have pain relief.
It's not their fault that drug addicts crave these drugs.

>probably knowing the long-term implications.
Yeah, people with horrible pain have their pain relieved.
FUCK YOU

>doctors were encouraged to give them to patients more as they were incentivized with cash.
Oh so now you're agreeing with my point?
That government monopolized "doctors" which dominate the american medical system are a BAD thing?
Fucking statist idiot.

>How could a free market stop this?
Competing medical schools/agencies.

Also your current statist system isn't stopping it, it's only making it worse.

>It's nothing to do with the drugs being illegal!
YES, YES IT IS
You support these drugs being illegal, obviously.
Your system isn't working.

>These are prescription drugs
Which are illegal in those that haven't been prescribed them lmao

>If you can't see there are huge issues with the American system then you are blind.
Of course there is you dummy, it's YOUR system afterall.

>Why is America (and New Zealand) the only countries which allow prescription drug advertisements?
Because they actually have some semblance of FREEDOM left in this specific instance?

>Do you think the government restrictions in other countries might be why they don't have this epidemic?
LOL I'm Canadian, we have this problem just as bad as you do.

I swear to god you leftists need to be thrown from helicopters.

[Anonymous No.9510433]

>>9510404
>People are animals.
So we should give animals the right to control our economy and what we should say and think?
This is literally what you science hating leftist scum are saying?

[Anonymous No.9510435]

>>9508214
This is what happens when you vote in Republicans. Third Party or bust!

[Anonymous No.9510436]

>>9510427
>evolution has been proven false

leftists, everyone

[Anonymous No.9510439]

>>9510435
>there are people who would unironically vote for Jill Stein on this board and unironically consider themselves to be intellectuals

[Anonymous No.9510441]

>>9510435

[Anonymous No.9510443]

>>9510435
>I want to completely destroy the economy and force everyone to work 60 hours weeks in destitution and poverty
yeah sorry no.

[Anonymous No.9510444]

>>9510421
Oh good idea, I will also feed the birds while I am at it. Maybe I'll give them some of the leftover cocain as well.
You aren't grasping well the whole concept of me getting to do whatever I want even if it makes you unhappy or you think it's a bad idea. My money not your problem or your business. Motherfuckers who need mommy government to keep them safe from the spooky scary hobos are fucking pathetic

[Anonymous No.9510445]

>>9510435
>throwing away your vote

[Anonymous No.9510446]

>>9510444
hobos aren't spooky or scary. they're vile, and wretched, but worst of all, slothful and selfish.

[Anonymous No.9510447]

>>9510426
Oh we're making laws based on sins now? That's excellent public policy. What could go wrong

[Anonymous No.9510449]

>>9510444
>My money not your problem or your business
But what you do in town is. It's not your town lad, you didn't pay for it. We have cities and we have laws to regulate what can be done in those cities.

Build your own fucking town where you can give money to hobos all you like.

[Anonymous No.9510450]

>>9510447
shows how intelligent you are. it was specified exactly and no more that the way he got there was from his own idleness. it neither said nor implied anything about public policy.

[Anonymous No.9510451]

>>9510446
So let's get this straight: the government steals my money, uses it to enforce laws, including the law that says that I can't give away my money to whoever I want? And you justify this how? Oh right, hobos are "vile". Statists are fucking dumb

[Anonymous No.9510453]

>>9510449
you're arguing with a marxist, he's physically incapable of thinking about the consequences of his actions over the next 50 years

[Anonymous No.9510456]

>>9510453
>marxist
I was pretty sure he's a lolbertarian.

[Anonymous No.9510457]

>>9510451
>Statists are fucking dumb
They truly are.

This is why we need to throw them all of out helicopters to create our free market utopia.

[Anonymous No.9510459]

>>9508219
This. We need to impeach him and switch to Hillary Diane Rodham "Madame President" Clinton. With her help, we'll fly to Mars in no time with the power of socialism and political correctness.

[Anonymous No.9510464]

>>9508219
How are democrats not MORE anti science

they are anti technology and anti economic development

[Anonymous No.9510469]

>>9508219

[Anonymous No.9510477]

>>9510449
> we have laws
No you don't. YOU don't have any laws, the government does. How democratic do you think the system really is that you will actually talk about it that way? whats with the "our town" and "our laws" nonsense? The government decided hobos don't get my money, you had zero say it that, and you were somehow actually convinced that this wasn't fucked up. Dumb

[Anonymous No.9510481]

>>9510477
I'm pretty sure the anti-beggar laws are way old and thus customary and not the decision of governments in the first place.
You should really read Law, Legislation and Liberty if you're gonna LARP as a libertarian.

[Anonymous No.9510482]

>>9510481
>Law, Legislation and Liberty
>Hayek

He was barely a libertarian desu.

Mises and rothbard destroyed his bullshit in their later works.

Also don't get me started on those kikes friedman and rand

[Anonymous No.9510485]

>>9510482
Watevs bruh, you'll start having a better understanding once you start actually reading the sources instead of skimming wiki articles and forum rumors.

[Anonymous No.9510532]

>>9510481
>customary
You mean "tyranny of the majority". This is where democracy fails, it gives power to the people and everyone cheers without thinking about whether or not the power should exist in the first place. Democracy simply gives individuals power over their neighbors lives, which is power that they nor anyone else should have. You know what else used to be "customary"? Slavery. That's democracy for ya. Just another trick to make you think you aren't being fucked as badly as you are.

[Anonymous No.9510912]

>>9508214
THE GOOKS WILL BUY IT

the gooks will buy everthing

[Anonymous No.9510918]

>>9510445
having a two TWO party system

jeh no wonder its so easy to by the american gov. you must only pay 2 dudes to have 100% chance of winning no matter who the muttplebs elect

[Anonymous No.9510957]

>>9508356
The private sector nearly universally prioritizes short term profit over long term advances. Scientific advancements are usually made by some poor assholes slowly chugging away for decades on something nobody but them thought would ever turn into something useful.

[Anonymous No.9511556]

>>9510918
>drastically changing the way governments run on a regular basis is a great decision
yeah, revolutions are great for the people, they leave a country in tip top shape, best to have one every 4 to 8 years

[Anonymous No.9511588]

>>9509670
>wow this is heretical to my belief structure, therefore its wrong(even though I actually internally accept it since I believe that whites have some sort of duty to the non-whites)

If it was wrong it wouldn't be so suppressed

[Anonymous No.9511715]

>>9510409
>A school that doesn't do real research (yes, real research that isn't oriented in turning a profit) will fail

I strongly suspect you have no experience or affiliation with science of any kind. Effectively all profitable research is derived from decades of academic, theoretical, 'unprofitable' research propped up on public funds. The profitable stuff that isn't is also not the kind of stuff that will cure cancer or colonize space - you don't need many years of theoretical research to make custom splints for athletes, but that's also not the kind of science that built the American scientific empire.

If you value actual science, you don't want the government to pull public funds.

>you should at least recognize that all of the business a school receives from the private sector is totally dependent on their reputation as a scientific institution

Yes, but I already established that pulling public funding will massively gimp the total output of all scientific institutions. MIT will still rake in big bucks from the private sector like they always have - but they'll also lay off half their professors. Economic decisions work on the margin.

>A school as successful as these needs to be able to fund the same amount of research whether government helps or not, otherwise they just won't be that successful.

So your theory here is that schools will be more successful if you cut their total funding by over half and cause them to lay off most of their academic faculty? In what universe is that not completely retarded? lol

[Anonymous No.9511793]

>>9510957
>mighty centralized soviet union - serf labor in the fields and vacuum tube radios (stolen nazi factory) as pinnacle of communist technology
>decadent capitalist west - automation, computers, cars and even color tvs with 24/7 television channel, more than one!

[Anonymous No.9511893]

>>9511715
> you think schools will be more successful if you cut their funding
No I have never once made a claim about the relative success of universities compared to now. My entire point is that universities do have a natural incentive to fund research as much as they are capable, and the research they want to fund is the same research they are currently funding with government money. I have said that if universities are to be as successful as they are now, then all of their research needs to be funded at its current level. Obviously if you dump a ton of public money on something you are bound to make it at least a bit more productive, and obviously if you cut public funding things will be at least a bit less productive. My argument though is that this isn't fundamentally different from any other time the government hands out cash to large private entities like this. The government very often hands out subsidies for things that the market is perfect capable of providing, just not at the same level that people maybe want. This is one of those cases. We should recognize this fact because walking around insisting that the government is the sole provider of certain things like this is foolish. We should recognize it because sometimes the question of what we should do with pubic money isn't always clean cut and the correct answer changes sometimes. Sometimes it is ok to spend a lot of money on science, sometimes we should spend it on other things. Sometimes our government somehow manages to find itself 20 trillion in debt, and in this case it is very frustrating to find people who are fundamentally confused as to what it is that truly drives scientific progress vs what it is that is simply helping out.

[Anonymous No.9511901]

>>9511556
This pic is so true.
t. russian

[Anonymous No.9511917]

>>9511893
>and obviously if you cut public funding things will be at least a bit less productive.
doubtful
The returns on "publicly funded" research is literally nill

[Anonymous No.9511933]

>>9509515
Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall recent attempts to underfund NASA space programs

[Anonymous No.9511941]

>>9511793
most of those advances came out of primary research funded by the government, not from private industry

[Anonymous No.9511959]

reminder that CRISPR/Cas9 systems are an earth-shattering revolution in molecular biology and wouldn't be possible if the government hadn't funded microbiologists studying some weird structural features of bacterial genomes

[Anonymous No.9512189]

Why can't we support both the idea of private industries working in space as well as government programs with the distinct goal of beneficial research for humanity?

Just because I don't want retardo to sell off the ISS to the highest bidder doesn't mean I'm against corporations working on all things space

[Anonymous No.9512235]

>>9509309
You can rely on observation evidence for this one. Over the last few decades my government (in Australia) has sold off a number of public services to private corporations. In every single case this has happened services have noticeably decreased on quality and increased in price. Not once has this push for privatisation actually benefited the public, all it has done is made few rich people significantly richer.

[Anonymous No.9512351]

>>9508609
>you stated that the real decisions are made behind closed doors. but then you state that these decisions are made public in the meeting.
t.has never taken part in a business meeting before

[Anonymous No.9512358]

>>9510249
>being this ignorant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization

[Anonymous No.9512360]

>>9509266
>implying he humiliated him in the first place

[Anonymous No.9512392]

>>9508214
Isn't this basically happening because the ISS is reaching end of life anyways? If it still remains functional and some private entity wants to use it, why not?

[Anonymous No.9512533]

>>9512235
Well I certainly agree with you that the private sector also is prone to have big issues, but you should recognize that the problems with government and with monopolies are the same problems. Government gets away with what it does for the same reason large corporations get away with what they do. Corporations can do whatever they want because they tend to own most of the market so people refusing to pay for their service is not a real threat to them. Government can do whatever it wants because refusing to pay for their service is actually illegal. You are right that we should not ignore unchecked power in the private sector, but I will insist that one of these evils is a much greater threat to us. Corporations tend to end up with a lot of power, but corporations don't usually have a police force, or a military, or laws requiring that you pay for their service. And if you want to bring up history, I know that we can agree that many atrocities have been committed both at the hand of government as well as in the name of profit. But government, unarguably, has done worse things historically and I think that demonstrates my point. Having a military and the ability to enforce laws is a power that causes problems that the free market will never compare to and I really worry about how people are willing to ignore this just because they think Comcast sets unfair prices.

[Anonymous No.9512880]

>>9510249
Atlanta's water system was privatized but within a few years service went to hell and the company, United Water, begged the city to take back the water system from them. Turned out to be a harder service to provide than they thought.

[Anonymous No.9512896]

When the Republicans took over Congress during the Clinton administration, they gave the president a choice of funding ISS or the Texas Superconducting Super Collider. Clinton picked ISS. Wonder how much science we could have performed with TSSC instead of ISS.

[Anonymous No.9512978]

The first step towards entering the Universal Century. I can already picture the TV ads.

>"Are you tired of living on the land? How about living on the land... IN SPACE?!"

[Anonymous No.9513113]

[Anonymous No.9513145]

>>9511941
>talking out of your ass
Give me some proof

[Anonymous No.9513361]

If the science community doesn't raise up in protest against this then there is no saving humanity.

[Anonymous No.9513455]

>>9513361
They were going to deorbit it anyway, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9513485]

I never thought I'd see the day when Americans blow away all their achievements from the cold war due to an orange cheeto

[Anonymous No.9513493]

>>9508214
I see a pretty good opportunity with this. This seems like a good way of incentivising developments in space engineering. I like.

[Anonymous No.9513497]

>>9509204
Literally no example where its false.

[Anonymous No.9513499]

>>9513497
There's been multiple examples in this thread of it being false.

[Anonymous No.9513503]

>>9512533
True, but at least there is some leverage for citizens to change public policy they disagree with. If they get enough people angry they can change the legislature and affect the laws that govern themselves. There's much less opportunity for meaningful change with a private company, especially a large national one with near monopoly status.

My real opinion is that there has to be some middle ground between "government does everything" and "privatize the world" that we could live in confortably. There are some industries that could probably live with being private and others I wouldn't trust private companies with my life over.

[Anonymous No.9513907]

>>9508519
The orbit needs to be easily reachable from Baikonur, 28 degrees and your debris lands in China.

[Anonymous No.9513925]

>>9513907
"needs" ? Only if you are a pork program where "international cooperation" is a key element

[Anonymous No.9514848]

>>9511917
you literally don't know what you're talking about lol. every successful scientist has put out some great papers funded by the NIH

[Anonymous No.9514961]

>>9511588
>If it was wrong it wouldn't be so suppressed

kinda like anti-vaxxing, flat earth bullshit, phrenology, and heliocentric solar systems for instance?

yeah, things that are repressed for being too stupid have an /excellent/ track record of actually being correct

[Anonymous No.9515271]

>>9513925
How is international cooperation "pork"? The ISS would not have been remotely as capable or long-lived without the involvement of multiple countries.