What Do You Think About The President Dropping Funding For Nasa ?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='28 January 2010 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1264738729' post='2047021']
Actually they are being grounded after 30 years of service, 20 years more than they were originally designed for to be replaced by the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicles, which are to be launched by Ares 1 rockets , which are touted by industry experts to be more reliable and safer than the Solid Rocket Boosters or SRB's they currently use.

ed
[/quote]
Isn't that what I said?

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='28 January 2010 - 11:11 PM' timestamp='1264738261' post='2047008']
First of all, there's not more than one "marketplace." The market is the whole of network of voluntary exchange between humans. And I did share the case: the entirety of economic development over all of human history. The vast and exponential increase in standard of living from the discovery of fire until today. Technological innovations are a major part of that, but the division of labor and an ever-growing store of capital are even more important--though, of course, these things are all interdependent.

Specific accomplishments? The computer you're typing on, the electricity powering the computing, the IPS connected you to the Internet, the IPS the site you're on uses to connect it to the Internet, the desk or table your computer is sitting on, the chair [i]you[/i] are sitting on, the clothes on your body, the food in your stomach, the medical care maintaining your health, the room in which you're sheltered, the rest of the furnishings within the room, the paint or wallpaper on the walls, the lights lighting the room, the heating system keeping it warm, the pane glass in the window, the car outside, the road on which you drive the car (probably built by taxes but, again, no private and productive economy, no taxes to build and maintain the road), the gas within the car, the radio in the car, the radio programs you can hear on the radio...I mean what more to a need to say? What economic accomplishment has [i]not[/i] been procured through the market?
[/quote]

Many of these varied things you offer here in this post have either been developed or enhanced through NASA accomplishments, and that is all under the umbrella of the space program. In this "whole network" you mention there is no other single entity that has accomplished as much as this one organization, not even close.

ed

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='28 January 2010 - 11:23 PM' timestamp='1264738996' post='2047030']
Isn't that what I said?
[/quote]

Yes I was agreeing with you, believe it or not ! I was just expanding on the reasons.

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='28 January 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1264739154' post='2047036']
Yes I was agreeing with you, believe it or not ! I was just expanding on the reasons.

ed
[/quote]
My bad.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='28 January 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1264739321' post='2047040']
My bad.
[/quote]

Nihil I feel there is no bad in open debate or the honest exchange of ideas among men, as in mankind. I am thrilled you obviously better educated and youthful people who populate this board even entertain the ramblings of a senile citizen such as myself, its a monument to to your upbringing.

Kissing brown and gettin' down !

ed

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='28 January 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1264739054' post='2047034']
Many of these varied things you offer here in this post have either been developed or enhanced through NASA accomplishments, and that is all under the umbrella of the space program. In this "whole network" you mention there is no other single entity that has accomplished as much as this one organization, not even close.

ed
[/quote]

It doesn't need to be one, single entity. The question I'm asking is whether the $18.7 NASA will be receiving this year would more efficiently spent if left in the hands of the private individuals who originally owned it. I think it would because the laws of economics demonstrate this to be so. Government agencies have neither the incentive nor the information to ensure their funds are invested as efficiently as possible. No incentive because it's not their money and they have no risk of loss if they misspend it. No information because they aren't operating with the price system, so they lack the signals that market actors have to show them what any investment is worth according to supply and demand.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='28 January 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1264740232' post='2047058']
It doesn't need to be one, single entity. The question I'm asking is whether the $18.7 NASA will be receiving this year would more efficiently spent if left in the hands of the private individuals who originally owned it. I think it would because the laws of economics demonstrate this to be so. Government agencies have neither the incentive nor the information to ensure their funds are invested as efficiently as possible. No incentive because it's not their money and they have no risk of loss if they misspend it. No information because they aren't operating with the price system, so they lack the signals that market actors have to show them what any investment is worth according to supply and demand.
[/quote]

Yes this is true on many levels, but NASA returns their expenditures at a constant 7 to 1 rate, not a bad return by any yardstick. Most , if not all government bureaucracies have little or no return, actually most can be termed white elephants, but , historically NASA does not fit the government mold. Perhaps this is as scientists with a definite goal, not just a think tank like objective, they have goals and work towards them, perhaps that is why they produce so efficiently.

I feel that any monies would be far better left in the hands of individuals than to be forcibly obtained through taxes and threat of incarceration. This has one caveat the monies used for publicly accepted programs, things like national defence and I feel, NASA, however I do not feel forced contributions to welfare and other government forms of charity are neither acceptable or efficient, the catholic church actually provides more bang for your buck than any other charity private or governmental.

ed

Edited January 29, 2010 by Ed Normile

[Luigi]

"We have a Christian duty to examine all of God's creation, including stars, planets, asteroids, our moon, and other moons. The answer to better understand our God could be out there.
Not to mention the solar system is really really cool, and the more we learn, the cooler it becomes."

If God wanted us to explore outer space, we'd all be born with oxygen masks on our faces, rockets on our ankles, and stabilizing wings on our kiesters. Besides, what if we find aliens out there? And what if Jesus died on their planet for their sins, too? And what if they our alien Catholic brothers & sisters pray in concrete cathedrals, sing guitar hymns , and do liturgical dances ?

I don't know, man, it might be too much for some people.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='28 January 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1264736938' post='2046972']
Stern, you sure are hung up on guns. I would assume you are not from england, as they know firsthand what happens to citizens when only outlaws have weapons. By the way, I never mentioned guns, I did however reference space based weaponry which is a real threat we will be unable to monitor with no presence in space. We also need to maintain our satellite communications, weather stations yes even the Hubble telescope, which besides the pretty pictures watches for meteoroids, monitors planetary disturbances and provides other valuable insights into space.

ed
[/quote]

Taxes = guns to raise money for a cause. If there's no threat of force, there's no tax. If it's absolutely necessary, the market will rise to the challenge. I don't see anyone starving to death when the State isn't involved in providing food. I sure do see them starving to death when the State does get involved.

I'd donate to provide for large-scale [true] defense. I'd donate to maintain satellite communications and weather stations. However, the degree of efficacy of a State agency, or my willingness or lack of willingness to donate to support a cause, does not mean that you have any right to take my money by violence or the threat of violence, either by doing it yourself, or by you choosing someone else to do it [i]for[/i] you.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 29, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='29 January 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1264742152' post='2047081']
Taxes = guns to raise money for a cause. If there's no threat of force, there's no tax.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I certainly agree with that, perhaps you seen my post above? I am no fan of forced taxes, I feel charity is better left to the individual, limited government should be the rule, only the branches necessary to insure our freedoms and safety like the police and military.

ed

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='29 January 2010 - 12:23 AM' timestamp='1264742606' post='2047090']
I certainly agree with that, perhaps you seen my post above? I am no fan of forced taxes, I feel charity is better left to the individual, limited government should be the rule, only the branches necessary to insure our freedoms and safety like the police and military.

ed
[/quote]

You agree with it, but the end still justifies the means? Robbing people is wrong except when it's to protect them from being robbed?

What is a State limited by, Ed?

Lastly, what justifies the act of taking money from non-aggressors by means of violence or the threat of violence?

~Sternhauser

Edited January 29, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='29 January 2010 - 12:29 AM' timestamp='1264742941' post='2047093']
You agree with it, but the end still justifies the means? Robbing people is wrong except when it's to protect them from being robbed?

What is a State limited by, Ed?

Ed, what justifies taking money from people through violence or the threat of violence?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Stern, what do you propose we do to ensure our sovereignty and safety ? Without a military we would be open to whatever violence is foisted upon our shores by any aggressor. Without police or emergency services we would be subjected to chaos, the strong would prey upon the weak, it would be like a feudal system where you would then have everything taken from you by the meanest sumnaboitch or be killed for resisting. Of course we could set off for an as yet uninhabited area and live commune style off the land allowing for the odd happenstance when an aggressive type takes the fruits of our labors and kicks sand in our faces by turning the other cheek, but it may be hard to get many followers.

ed

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='29 January 2010 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1264742152' post='2047081']
Taxes = guns to raise money for a cause. If there's no threat of force, there's no tax. If it's absolutely necessary, the market will rise to the challenge. I don't see anyone starving to death when the State isn't involved in providing food. I sure do see them starving to death when the State does get involved.

I'd donate to provide for large-scale [true] defense. I'd donate to maintain satellite communications and weather stations. However, the degree of efficacy of a State agency, or my willingness or lack of willingness to donate to support a cause, does not mean that you have any right to take my money by violence or the threat of violence, either by doing it yourself, or by you choosing someone else to do it [i]for[/i] you.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

That is why we chose to live in this republic, we elect persons to represent our interests, its not a perfect system, but it is far better than any other system.

ed

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='29 January 2010 - 12:36 AM' timestamp='1264743404' post='2047100']
Stern, what do you propose we do to ensure our sovereignty and safety ? Without a military we would be open to whatever violence is foisted upon our shores by any aggressor. Without police or emergency services we would be subjected to chaos, the strong would prey upon the weak, it would be like a feudal system where you would then have everything taken from you by the meanest sumnaboitch or be killed for resisting. Of course we could set off for an as yet uninhabited area and live commune style off the land allowing for the odd happenstance when an aggressive type takes the fruits of our labors and kicks sand in our faces by turning the other cheek, but it may be hard to get many followers.

ed
[/quote]

Ed, that's not what I asked. You're arguing from utility, not morality. I asked "What justifies taking money from non-aggressive people at gunpoint?"

I will answer you on your utilitarian terms, however. Did I say we would have no defensive services?

Do you think that a society that cannot defend itself without taking money by aggressive violence has any right to continue in existence? Do you truly think that the only way defensive services can be provided is through sticking guns in people's faces, whether up close and personal, or more distantly, through a threatening letter from the IRS? Do you really believe that emergency services can't be handled in much the same way that auto insurance is handled? (My insurance company is very efficient, very fast, and very professional. I pay them wholly voluntarily.) Do you think that without pre-emptive violence against innocents, we can't have a company like ADT, which, in addition to alarm services, could send armed men to respond to home invasions? I guarantee they'd show up faster than the 7 minute national police average, and would bear themselves very professionally, because they have the [i]incentive[/i] to do so.

You seem to think that not coercing money from innocent people means that we'll all have to be defenseless. That's nonsense. Putting extreme coercive power in the hands of a few select men is far more likely to result in popular defenselessness than any private individual or group of private individuals.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 29, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='29 January 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1264743584' post='2047101']
That is why we chose to live in this republic, we elect persons to represent our interests, its not a perfect system, but it is far better than any other system.

ed
[/quote]

I chose to live in this geographical region because my mother birthed me here, and I like the voluntary interchange among the people who live here. I don't live inside a political system, any more than I live inside of a tornado, an earthquake, or any other destructive entity over which I have no control. They merely subject me to their forces. A republic is not a place. It is an idea. A bad idea. It is the bad idea that you have the right to do violence against non-aggressors.

I do not live inside that violent idea. I am [i]in[/i] the world, but I strive to not be [i]of[/i] the world.

I do not choose to live here because people take my money at gunpoint, or because some people think they have the right to do so. I live here [i]despite[/i] that atrocious act based on that atrocious idea.

I do not choose anyone to do violence against innocents on my behalf, or for any cause, and I ask others to follow suit.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 29, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

I also like the question of whether or not it's morally required to give to charity.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 January 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1264744642' post='2047118']
I also like the question of whether or not it's morally required to give to charity.
[img]http://www.humormeonline.com/images/menu/forum.jpg[/img][img]http://www.humormeonline.com/images/menu/forum-over.jpg[/img][img]http://www.humormeonline.com/images/menu/forum-over.jpg[/img][/quote]

Nihil I beleive it is "Morally required " to give to charity, I think the rub comes in when you are forced to do so, as I feel there are better organizations to handle the monies than the government. Most the monies for welfare and retirement taken by the the government are wasted on many things besides what they are supposed to be used for. At least when you give to a catholic charity the money goes where its intended to go.

Stern when I posted we chose to live here, I meant in the broader sense that we as a people chose to live here as in our ancestors came here for the promise of America, I too was born here. Mt great grandparents immigrated here from Ireland to escape the problems there, both monitary and political as well as freedom of religion. Excuse me if you are of native american descent, I assumed you were , as most , of a foreign culture who moved here.

ed

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='30 January 2010 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1264867412' post='2047724']
Nihil I beleive it is "Morally required " to give to charity, I think the rub comes in when you are forced to do so, as I feel there are better organizations to handle the monies than the government. Most the monies for welfare and retirement taken by the the government are wasted on many things besides what they are supposed to be used for. At least when you give to a catholic charity the money goes where its intended to go.

Stern when I posted we chose to live here, I meant in the broader sense that we as a people chose to live here as in our ancestors came here for the promise of America, I too was born here. Mt great grandparents immigrated here from Ireland to escape the problems there, both monitary and political as well as freedom of religion. Excuse me if you are of native american descent, I assumed you were , as most , of a foreign culture who moved here.

ed
[/quote]
THe native americans are not native to the Western Hemisphere either.