Wouldn't it be considered as wasting money and the scientists told to get "real jobs"?
In a libertarian society who would fund expensive science experiments?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
your mother's ass would
Libertarianism is the greatest meme ever bro!
But science doesn't need government desu
Look at Monsanto, SpaceX
>implying society isn't better off without that
How many blowjobs would she have to give to fund a thorium reactor?
only shit that has potential for future profit, not seeking discoveries
Investors. If something doesn't create any jobs and wealth then it's not worth investing in
Governments funds SpaceX.
space x is contracted by the government to do stuff
Libertarians think everything should make an immediate profit
they don't believe in Blue Sky Research regardless of all the discoveries and break throughs they make.
But the LHC hasn't given out anything profitable. The internet they invented is technically still free for all.
>The internet they invented
This meme needs to end.
But most science research is barely profitable or takes decades of research to becoming profitable. Who is going to invest in something that turns out a profit after 50 years?
In a perfect libertarian society, being an evil genius would be decriminalized. So the scientists would go and work for successful evil geniuses and science would be used to further the cause of doing evil, like it always was supposed to have been doing.
wealthy private investors who want to reap the benefits of scientific progress and people who are just interested in it
Countries with a government funded internet backbone do have way better internet than countries with privately funded internet infrastructure.
Without the government, internet is basically unusable.
Science in that realm of reality would involve niggers colliding two rocks together to make new rocks to study the origin of rocks.
Technocrats. The world is partially run by them anyways
Fpbp
m-m-m-muh free market
investing in something that will probably never directly make a profit
kek
>Technocrats
I don't think you quite understand what that word means.
Who is going to invest in something that turns out a profit after like 50 years?
Shut up, toothpaste.
"technocracy" implies scientists having political power
I would weaponize sickle cell anemia.
This thing cost like 9 billion over a course of 20 years or so. This isnĀ“t really expensive actually. The refugees cost aus 25-40 billion a year so......
RACE WAR NOW
The World Wide Web is literally a CERN invention
>Open Source community
>Google R&D
>Tesla
>All of Silicon Valley
Where are you getting this misinformation from?
The internet was an American military invention to keep communications up during a nuclear attack.
This may surprise you but most of tesla technology comes from government funded projects initially
>Open Source community
You haven't actually used GNU/Linux, have you?
>implying society isn't better off without that
Society needs to develop practical fusion power within your lifetime if it doesn't want to collapse.
>wealthy private investors who want to reap the benefits of scientific progress
Nah. They want immediate results for minimal investment, while a lot of discovery happens by accident, and they expect the results they're paying for, so there goes objectivity. It's already a problem.
The World Wide Web and the Internet are different things you utter dolem. Without CERN you probably wouldn't have access to the Internet and it would remain a private military thing. Not to mention the "internet you are referring to is a basically a set of servers and nothing like the Internet now.
I don't get this
I consider myself libertarian, but I understand the need for research, etc
Anyone who claims to be anti-science is a cunt
the same way some of the greatest works of art were financed
Rich ass people paying for it for prestige, philanthropy or to show off their wealth
Oh, now I see.
When someone claims that "The internet they* invented* (*CERN) and I factually point out how they DIDN'T invent the internet you switch it to "The World Wide Web" to save face.
Gotcha ;-)
OK lets assume we went with your retarded lolbertarian logic and privatised all science research. Lets say, for hypothetical purposes, you're a typical kike Banker, but is also a science aficionado. So you decide to loan out $9 billion "FOR SCIENCE!", for a duration of 20 years at a fixed interest rate of 15% ROI.
In which universe do you see being paid back a total interest of $138 billion?
I literally said the world wide web is a cern invention you autistic mouth breeding spudlad
>In a libertarian society who would fund expensive science experiments?
Is this a fucking joke? R&D thrives under economic liberalism.
>tiny fraction is government-funded
>therefore research requires government
you could apply this argument to anything, statist
>CERN is the only center for scientific research
nice meme
Yeah, just look at Elon Musk
Straw man faggot. Oil, electricity, cars, planes... Market supplies all. Progress is stifled by government, but hey, I guess you've gotta buy off all the smart people somehow. It's too bad all they do is jack off their brains into a wad of paper that no one will ever read or use.
Please see this lolbertarians
Are you saying research is never profitable? I can't understand what are you trying to imply but its not true.
>usury
>good
kys kike.
>>>>>>tiny fraction
Hmm lets see
Musk himself receives 4.9 billion a year in government research
But that's not what I'm arguing much of his technology such as the lithium batteries, capicitors, hydraulics are from funded research
You should really read through a thread before you reply, user.
You'll end up looking a lot less stupid, FYI.
What is the object of money?
wow numbers
what are they supposed to mean? i agree with you that fundamental research on things like theoretical physics would come about more slowly without government intervention. you're completely retarded if you don't think government regulation is slowing down drug development and biological inventions (aka things that can be sold to sick people for tons of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)
>Progress is stifled by government
No, government investment in infrastructure, technology, etc helps society progress.
Limiting everything to private funding prevents long term investment that doesn't seek immediate profits.
The best system is a mixed economy with private ownership where the government pays companies to build things like the Hoover Dam or the international highway system.
>against usury
>expects to fund billion dollar risky science experiments at the cost of losing time value of money
Fuck all you tards, I'm going to check these now.
*Interstate
>stopping unscrupulous pharma companies from releasing a dangerous chemical is stifling mug progress ( read profits )
>lithium batteries
>Lithium batteries were proposed by M. S. Whittingham, now at Binghamton University, while working for Exxon in the 1970s.[16] Whittingham used titanium(IV) sulfide and lithium metal as the electrodes. However, this rechargeable lithium battery could never be made practical. Titanium disulfide was a poor choice, since it has to be synthesized under completely sealed conditions. This is extremely expensive (~$1000 per kilo for titanium disulfide raw material in 1970s). When exposed to air, titanium disulfide reacts to form hydrogen sulfide compounds, which have an unpleasant odour. For this, and other reasons, Exxon discontinued development of Whittingham's lithium-titanium disulfide battery.[17]
>capacitors
>In Berlin, Pollak ran electrotechnical factory "G. Wehr Telegraphen-Bau-Anstalt". Later he returned to Britain to commercialize his patents, which were released under anglicised version of his name, "Charles Pollak". In 1886 he became the director of a Paris company of electric tramways of his design. In the meantime he worked on the design of Electrochemical cell. He was very successful in this topic and it made him famous. Later he founded battery factories in Frankfurt, Germany and Liesing, Austria. Many battery-manufacturing companies have licensed his designs.
And hydraulics go back to the Greeks, you fucking moron
>environmental laws that stop us from looking like China stifle muh profits
I will just leave this here
>but m-muh omnipotent free market!
>scientists told to get "real jobs"?
yes. next question.
>forcing pharma companies to pay $10k per lab mouse is necessary
>billion dollar lawsuits for rare negative reactions is necessary
>taking several years to get a drug on the market that could be used to treat people with cancer prior to dying because the drug might make them sick is necessary
>muh strawman
This has to be a troll. If some company spent billions of dollars on research, think asteroid mining or some gay shit, then they're expecting a return and are able to sell the idea to an investor or banker. It's really fantastic.
i think his point is that most companies would not expect to make a return, and therefore would not invest in said experimental research
Why aren't you arguing against the specific regulations instead of "all" regulations?
It's like saying you disagree with the tax code so lets legalize murder.
Everyone would have more money, and crowdfunding would be a big thing.
>actually expecting private companies to fund asteroid mining
>implying
You don't have to be an an-cap to be a libertarian.
Do you think that if you have to FORCE someone to pay for something, that maybe they shouldn't have to or shouldn't need to pay for it? If people demand something they will voluntary exchange for that something.
Ok, so for the techno-ignorant here is how I remember things going down. In the beginning there was ARPANET. A DARPA program to create a network of computers which could sustain a large chunk of said computers being wiped out due to nuclear war. This is the birthplace of the IP (internet protocol and maybe the TCP aswell can't remember). ARPANET is rolled out to USA universities as benefits are realised. Europe Universities granted access to network in due time. Here you have the beginnings of the INTERNET.
Now private business is allowed in to the mix allowing the creation of what we would consider today the internet.
The World Wide Web is the result of service provided by HTTP server software (and later HTTPS) on ports 80 (and 443 respectively). HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol) is an abstraction built on top of TCP/IP. ( I have deliberatly not mentioned DNS for simplicities sake.)
Sir Tim Berners Lee is widely regarded as the father of the World Wide Web as he implemented the first sucsessful Server to Client transmission using HTTP on the internet.
They created the world wide web, not the internet.
Either way, modern internet is the work of various scientists and research teams who combined some of their most powerful tools into one super structure, the best contribution having been from the american army and RnD teams
National Socialism is the best system.
>libertarians
>also think people function like homines oeconomici only thinking of immediate profit
you guys are the ultimate fedora core
that is some delicious pasta, thanks m8
>In a libertarian society--
well there's your problem. Your question starts with a contradiction!
>I'm a degenerate therefore everyone is
If you can't sell the idea to ANYBODY then it's prolly a fuckin waste
then why aren't you fine with health/safety/environmental regulations in principle?
>muh Force
see this must be an ancap
always whining about how le evil taxes and governmnet spending are without context.
As if government spending for the cgood of the country is in any way "bad"
same people who do right now, ackmed. people who want to benefit from the research.
>Wouldn't it be considered as wasting money and the scientists told to get "real jobs"?
Nice bait.
Companies are extremely interested in the potential opportunities from these experiments.
They fund them because they want to be ahead of the pack.
Fair point, I agree that mining asteroids for the sake of it is bullshit science and more sci-fi masturbation.
I am fine with environmental regulations in principle. Pollution is an infringement of property rights.
libertarians support and promote degeneracy
>The internet they invented is technically still free for all.
Fuck off.
>implying that we'd be better off forcing people to pay for it
Kill yourself commie
>lol it isn't profitable now so it will never be
that's the same logic you would have used to defund DARPA
Underrated post.
>government spending=communism
that's not what communism is, dumbass
communism is government control of the means of production.
By your """logic"""" the US government paying for NASA to go to the moon was "communism"
Is that a nazi tattoo on his right arm?
As if forcing people to pay for something and then giving them shit product is good.
Nice strawman faggot. I'm saying that for some things, it's worth waiting on until the technology/material costs are cheap enough. To use your debating skills
"lol the digital computer is profitable now, why didn't the Babylonians invent it"
I thought fedoras are usually history buffs and Roman boos?
Historically, the richest few of a society were always interested in social peace. They would buy that peace by financing various prestigious projects to show the populace that they were good guys. Those were never just panem et circenses. On top of that they would also finance great architectural projects, they would pay poets and thinkers for their works
>shit product
kek yeah the space program was so "shit" in the 60s
just ignore all the scientific progress they made.
All the basic research is done by goverment organisations everywhere in western world. Company tech spending makes up usually third of the research budgets and consist mostly totally different field than what goverment does.
>Libertarians think everything should make an immediate profit
No, libertarians think people should decide themselves what is done with their property. Most libetarian thinkers would probably think that in the long-term the security of private property will improve the population's time preference to the point that long-term projects like scientific research will become easier to fund.
In what way is this post responding to an argument I've made?
>They created the world wide web, not the internet.
That's my point, people need to quit saying stupid shit that's not true. The internet you're using right now began as a U.S. military precaution (regarding communications during nuclear war) which CERN just built upon.
Pic related. You're welcome, idiots.
im not going to argue definitions faggot.
Define "basic research"
Bro just do crowdfunding lmao :^)
But in all honesty, it likely wouldn't be funded.
There's the possibility of futurist organizations and long-term conscious patricians, but those seem far less assured than a government who literally doesn't care about making a profit, and is more than happy to throw money at something that won't produce civilian results for decades, if not more.
Remember, people, and thus voters, like Science!; what they don't like is actually picking and choosing which Science! they want to fund, because that would require them to understand what all that Science! actually is.
>private the profits
>socialise the losses
This really sums up all lolbertarians. Its no wonder most of them deny climate change.
how are you ever going to make the scientific progress to make technology profitable without spending money on research? Much of that investment might not be profitable for decades down the line meaning no company would invest.
>"lol the digital computer is profitable now, why didn't the Babylonians invent it"
>comparing millennia to decades
Bravo