re: Why are we afraid of Democratic Socialism?

quote:

---

It is paid for by taxpayers,

---

Ok. What is the infrastructure you're referring to?

quote:

---

Again, please read what I write instead of just imagining the words you want to.

---

I read exactly what you said. I asked a question for you to clarify. You just responded with the above.

quote:

---

let's say you believe that the infrastructure is what made the entirety of their wealth possible.

---

I reject this premise. You are attributing success to external factors alone. You don't want to go down this road.

quote:

---

Have they taken advantage of the infrastructure paid by others to the tune of 5 billion dollars?

---

Ok, if it’s only because of “infrastructure”...where’s your $5 billion?

quote:

---

Fair share of what!? Have they taken advantage of the infrastructure paid by others to the tune of 5 billion dollars?

---

quote:

---

There are many on this board who will agree, saying Amazon should replace public libraries with a straight face

---

You, on the other hand, would wish on google books, or other private-free sources, the inability to compete.

quote:

---

Try again.

---

Try what again? In your scenario, it is in the interest of the government to just kill you at 67, right?

In reality, public funding of basic research has produced so much wealth that I can't believe I have to argue for its merits. Recombinant DNA research from Paul Berg and others was funded with a small grant from the NIH, which lead to recombinant DNA technology, which lead to the creation of a billion dollar industry.

If it were to disappear, it certainly wouldn't be the insurance industry who would step in to fund basic research.

quote:

---

You, on the other hand, would wish on google books, or other private-free sources, the inability to compete.

---

Please enlighten me about the stiff competition in the free literature industry

quote:

---

I don’t know who’d be arguing with. It wasn’t your original premise. But feel free to keep those goalposts on roller skates.

---

My premise in the context of the thread is that insurance companies do not fund medical innovations to that high of a degree, which they don't. You asked why the government is more interested in medical innovations more than an insurance company despite the interest the government has in you dying, and I answered you. Correct me if I've misrepresented your point.

quote:

---

Have a look back at your own claims about who funds research and tell us in the absence of private funding how much would be left.

---

Again, the insurance industry funds a tiny percentage of medical R & D. Most of the funding comes from biotech, pharmaceuticals, and the government, but there is a meaningful difference in what gets funded from biotech companies versus governmental organizations. If the government stopped funding basic research, different projects would suffer than those funded by Biotechs and Pharmaceuticals.

quote:

---

From a entity that has an interest in you dying.

---

Yet, all over the developed world, they do, even in aging populations. The fact of the matter, the reality on the ground, is that public funding of research has produced tangible benefits, regardless of the fact that these governments have had an "interest in you dying." How do you explain that fact? It's not even a hypothetical situation. Governments have funded things like vaccines (I believe all 25 or so available vaccines were publicly funded, but I'm not sure about smallpox) which have had a greater effect on increasing lifespan than pretty much every other innovation, and thus the associated liabilities that come with aging (on welfare systems generally), and have continued to fund projects despite the supposed burden. If choosing between an industry, insurance, whose net effect on medical research has been effectively nil, and governmental organizations, who, despite their "interest in you dying" have continued to fund public research projects, I'll obviously choose the latter. And that we have a verifiable list of advancements directly tied to public funding adds to my point, which is that the liability old-age offers is entirely offset by the gains made through this research.

If the suggestion is that governments are not going to fund research because they want you to die before you are turned into a liability, the reality on the ground suggests something else.

quote:

---

Your response speaks for itself.
Here are a few:

1. World Digital Library

2. Universal Digital Library

3. Project Gutenberg

4. Bartleby

5. ibiblio

6. Google Books

7. Internet Archive

8. Open Library

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

---

So nothing offline then?

quote:

---

So nothing offline then?

---

Wait!
You mean like traveling 20-30 minutes to a library. Searching a card catalog to locate a title. Hunting for the book in the stacks, while hoping the single copy is not checked out. Taking it to the front checkout desk. Traveling 20-30 minutes back home with the book. Then make another 40 minute roundtrip to return the book in two weeks?????

Goodness man.
Do you still type book reports on an IBM selectric, and play pong on your B&W TV during your breaks?