BF2S Forums How to Destroy American Jobs

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The government needs to do its own R&D as well. R&D is a market in and of itself and the government is a consumer of that market. There isn't just one all-encompassing market. You're being purposefully obtuse.

I can't think of anything the government would need R&D for that the market couldn't do first.  Why experiment with tax dollars?  Don't you want to use tax money for only "sure things?"

Seriously? If that were the case, we'd never get anywhere.

The government levies requirements for things that either don't exist or need to be improved upon all the time. That requires R&D to make happen. The market provides that R&D, either through commercial labs or academia or government-owned facilities. One could certainly argue to eliminate the government-owned facilities and let commercial and academia handle the R&D requirements.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Seriously? If that were the case, we'd never get anywhere.

The government levies requirements for things that either don't exist or need to be improved upon all the time. That requires R&D to make happen. The market provides that R&D, either through commercial labs or academia or government-owned facilities. One could certainly argue to eliminate the government-owned facilities and let commercial and academia handle the R&D requirements.

Yeah, but we as a people should decide what we need or don't need.  The government should be our servant just like companies are.

So individuals should decide what needs to exist or not, but only with their own money, not that of taxpayers.

So you're saying the people should vote, referendum-style, on every R&D project?

Hello total-lack-of-progress.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So you're saying the people should vote, referendum-style, on every R&D project?

Hello total-lack-of-progress.

No, I'm saying all research should be done via the market.

It already is. Some of it is funded by the government (as a consumer), but the R&D is actually performed by the market.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It already is. Some of it is funded by the government (as a consumer), but the R&D is actually performed by the market.

But shouldn't all that funding only come from the private sector?

Already covered that.

The government (primarily defense, if you privatize NASA) has some unique R&D requirements. Those must be funded by the government.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Already covered that.

The government (primarily defense, if you privatize NASA) has some unique R&D requirements. Those must be funded by the government.

Why not privatize the military?

Because it is one of the few jobs explicitly required by the Constitution to be carried out by the Federal Government.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Because it is one of the few jobs explicitly required by the Constitution to be carried out by the Federal Government.

So should the federal government only do what is mentioned in the Constitution?

To the greatest extent possible. That's why the Constitution says that all powers not explicitly provided for the federal government are otherwise provided for the States.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

To the greatest extent possible. That's why the Constitution says that all powers not explicitly provided for the federal government are otherwise provided for the States.

So adding an Amendment to the Constitution to add a function to the feds is a way to solidify its expansion even among Constitutionalists.

It would be, and has been done. But I don't think an amendment to privatize the military would pass outside of a Tom Clancy novel.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It would be, and has been done. But I don't think an amendment to privatize the military would pass outside of a Tom Clancy novel.

I wasn't specifically thinking of that actually.  I was just using the military as an example to figure out how you justify what should be socialized and what should be privatized.

It's based on the powers that are provided for in the Constitution. It all comes down to the governing principles upon which our country was founded, Turq.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's based on the powers that are provided for in the Constitution. It all comes down to the governing principles upon which our country was founded, Turq.

Only a certain portion of the population is made up of strict Constitutionalists.

This is why the federal government has expanded beyond what is dictated by the Constitution.  I think you'll also find that most other modern governments have experienced this expansion.

And I'm not a strict Constitutionalist. I do think that any expansion of the Federal government's role should be looked at with an eye and strong weighting toward the Founders' original intent, however.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And I'm not a strict Constitutionalist. I do think that any expansion of the Federal government's role should be looked at with an eye and strong weighting toward the Founders' original intent, however.

Fair enough.  I figure the better communication is between federalists and non-federalists, the more likely it is that a compromise can be reached with regard to reforming taxes and implementing "stimuluses" as well as reforming healthcare.

I think you'll find that even the most conservative agree that healthcare, tax code, and other reforms are needed. It is the method of reform that they disagree upon.

nukchebi0 wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Whoa, CalTech up the street is number 5?  Who'd have thunk considering how small the University is.  And to think, that is my number 2 choice for my kids, where USC is my #1 choice.

Caltech is a terrible choice unless your kids are transcendent at mathematics or natural sciences.