List: The world’s best inventions weren’t made for profit.

Edward-M:

Ego... At this point, all you're doing is arguing about semantics.  (Like whether all money counts as "profit.")  Which is, by the way, completely absurd - there's legal disputes, gifts, luck, etc, etc.  I'm NOT trying to debate these semantics with you so if you continue to do so I won't reply.

What ARE you trying to debate?

 

 

Edward-M:

if you continue to do so I won't reply.

 

Finally. 

"What ARE you trying to debate?"

I'm trying to debunk libertarian myths/slander/ & stereotypes.  For example how libertarians voted for bush twice then blamed us for the taxation policy for the spending *you guys* voted for.

You libertarians always rant about your ideal government, but if you had a real political party that inherited trillions in debt you might have to act differently than you'd want to.

Real politics isn't as simple as the slander & myths that libertarians rant about online.

 I don't get the point of the post.

First, altruism, non-profits, research institutes and scientific research are fantasitic features of a free society.  You're are making a mistake that we think that in a libertarian world all motivation is monetary profit seeking.  That was the case with adam smith models, but you are at MISES.ORG, ludwig von mises suggested the Human nature causes humans to act on a variety of motivations, not just profit motive.  Most of us here believe in a voluntary society, where there is no government coersion, these non-financial aspects of the human being would flourish even more.

Second, you referenced patents and other intellectual property rights.  Many of us don't believe in that as it is merely a gov't enforced privledge. 

Please don't assume what others think either. 

next, libertarian can mean a lot of different things.  I don't think anyone here voted for Bush as most don't find voting in general as acceptable.  I'd say about half of the people here are anarchists.  This is one the more radical libertarian sites.

Leftist, chill out.

How on Earth do you define profit? How does taking one's money not decrease one's profit?

How about this: you can have all of your leftist programs and taxes, so long as you make them voluntary. Deal?

Edward-M:

I'm trying to debunk libertarian myths/slander/ & stereotypes.  For example how libertarians voted for bush twice then blamed us for the taxation policy for the spending *you guys* voted for.

You libertarians always rant about your ideal government, but if you had a real political party that inherited trillions in debt you might have to act differently than you'd want to.

Real politics isn't as simple as the slander & myths that libertarians rant about online.

 

 Wow...Maybe you should be looking for an LP website then, because most people here dont want to have anything to do with the LP. 

By the way, how did you find out about mises.org?  Because whoever told you that this was a place with people in favor of taxes, conservatism and the LP was completely wrong.   

Edward-M:

First off, libertarians support taxes & so did the founding fathers.  The real debate is *how* to tax & I didn't state my tax beliefs, so don't assume.  We're not practicing some ideal government, we're paying for the wars of conservatives.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there guy.  Since we're all trying to debunk slander I think you need to lurk around the forum a bit more.  I think you'll find there are more anarchists on board than (L)ibertarians.  There might be one or two people here that even supported of the war... the vast majority of us despise it.

As for your comment about the founding fathers, I can care less what they think/said/believed.

Frankly if you want to blame someone for high taxes *blame yourselves* because it's you guys who almost always vote republican:

"the real news is 2004.  The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000)
  -- http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735

Libertarian party =/= libertarians.

Here's a hint: we have no choice but to raise taxes for the spending *you guys* voted for.  Again!  It never ends.  And if your party voted for Bush twice, you're conservatives.

Who's "you guys"?  I've never voted republican, I've never supported the war, I've never supported taxation that isn't completely voluntary, I've attended hundreds of protests that were organized by those on the "left".

And have you read the libertarian platform?  It's full of "reducing" taxes, not eliminating them.

I am a libertarian and by libertarian I mean anarchist.  I'm sure as hell not a member of the Libertarian Party.  Talk about slander.

Edward, you clearly did not do enough research before entering this board. I will outline politely before someone else does this a little more bluntly. You say you are here to debunk lies about liberal ideals, you are making an analogous error in your assessment of libertarians.

First, understand libertarians are probably more divided and in disagreement with one another than many liberals and conservatives. You seem to have come here with the assumption that the Libertarian Party (AKA "Big 'L' libertarians") represent the views of all or most libertarians ("small 'l' libertarians"). To put it lightly, you are mistaken. The Mises Institute represents a sect of libertarianism that believes in absolute free-markets and freedom as an ends, not a means. Most here believe that the libertarians you are apparently more familiar with are inconsistent at best, and are not true champions of liberty. Indeed, many here disagree with what level of statism, if any, is required, however all agree the ultimate goal is the absolute maximization of liberty. Therefore, you will find you are not calling anyone's bluff by citing the Constitution. While many here are sympathetic to some of the Founders, namely Jefferson, I think most would say they failed, and failed terribly.

The libertarian axiom is 'non-aggression towards non-aggressors". Taxation is a form of aggression, because it is coercive. 

Now if you would like to get into a respectful discussion about the virtues of statism and the welfare state, I am sure many here would be more than happy to engage you. Understand the people here are well versed in the areas of politics, ethics, and history. So please show some respect and do not assume the entire community has ignored, forgotten, or missed the Constitution and/or LP platform.

On a side note, I rarely participate on this board because I am relatively new to the Austrian School and have much work to do before I have anything meaningful to contribute. However, if nothing else, I feel I may be able to offer the perspective of an outsider with a more conventional or mainstream outlook, for what it is worth.

  Im going to get this back on topic. Your right most inventions that are of high need, are not made for profit. I think most people associate that everything  that exists today, would exist on the free market. Not true. States have made many inventions. It is profit that keeps those inventions alive. And the fact that very poor people( Carnegie) are ones who become billionaires kind of discredits your argument somewhat

I believe that in order to even think about anarchy, you need to realise that humans are inherently good natured and not selfish greedy bastards. once being on the moderate left myself, I feel for the poor. But I think that the state makes people poor than society itself.

The fact that my dad can't afford good healthcare isn't because of Exxon Mobile. Its the State taking out a 3rd of his money.

 

Jon Irenicus:

Question: who cares? What was the point of this thread?

 

The point is that defenders of IP often try the tactic of claiming that without IP, there is no profit motive for inventors to invent, so we need to keep IP around or the geniuses will stop producing amazing products.  Responding with a list of this sort would be an effective rebuttal, I think.

 

Edward-M:

 

First off, libertarians support taxes & so did the founding fathers.  The real debate is *how* to tax & I didn't state my tax beliefs, so don't assume.  We're not practicing some ideal government, we're paying for the wars of conservatives.

Buddy, your talking to the wrong crowd if you're gonna claim libertarians support taxes.  The good portion of the people here are anarchist who don't even support the idea of the existance of the state, let alone legalized theft in the form of taxes.

Edward-M:

Frankly if you want to blame someone for high taxes *blame yourselves* because it's you guys who almost always vote republican:

"the real news is 2004.  The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000)
  -- http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735

If a libertarian votes for a Republican its only because the Republicans generally favor lowering taxes.  Whereas Democrats generally favor socialistic enslavement of the country through more government and more taxes.  And quoting Cato ain't gonna get you anywhere here, friend.  They aren't any better than the American Enterprise Institute or the CFR as far as I'm concerned.

Edward-M:

Here's a hint: we have no choice but to raise taxes for the spending *you guys* voted for.  Again!  It never ends.  And if your party voted for Bush twice, you're conservatives.

"We" never voted for more spending.  You voted for more spending.  I assume you must be a liberal Democrat or some other form of socialist trash.  Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of spending more money, raising taxes, etc., etc.  You keep saying "your party" like all libertarians support the Libertarian Party (I only joined yesterday because I plan on running for office in the next few years and the LP has automatic ballot access in Texas).  The thing about it, friend, is that the LP didn't vote for Bush, individuals did.  And if they made that horrible mistake it's because they thought Bush would keep his promise of no nation building, limiting government and reducing spending.  Anyone that fell for it a second time is just an idiot.  Much like you, you socialist trash.

The people on this forum don't support Bush, don't support taxation, and don't even support the existence of the state.  If you're going to come to a place to bash people you'd better learn a little about them first before you open your stupid ignorant mouth.  The simple fact of the matter is that no one here is in favor of more taxes.  If nothing else we favor far less spending than is proposed even by "conservatives."

And for your own enlightenment:   You don't solve the problem of over spending by raising taxes.  You solve the problem by cutting spending.  And you make things even better by cutting spending and taxes.  That's the libertarian way.  But socialist trash like yourself wouldn't understand that.

 

 

 

He claims that he came here to clear up misconceptions about leftists (even though he didn't)... and he goes on to accuse a bunch of anarcho-capitalists of supporting taxation! Epic.

Good to know he likes porn, though!

Ego:

Good to know he likes porn, though!

 

 Lol. 

To answer the Original Topic.

 

Are you trying to make the argument that many inventions can't be made because it needs government intervention to do so?

 

Because, assuming that this is your argument, the only thing you have done is noted some things that government-funding may have played a part in.  I do not see how this makes the implication that government-funding is necessary.  Also, I'm getting the general idea that a lot of your statements are based on correlation implies causation fallacies.  If you want to bring up some data to back something up, that's fine, just note the following:

1)  Make it clear what your theoretical reasoning is (like, I'm guessing you may have wanted to say that certain non-governmental institutions don't have access to large almost unlimited capital like the State might have).

2)  At least for me,  don't try arguing something like, for example, "The trivial pains that we go through for extra taxation wouldn't offset these great technological innovations that the State has made."  Because I'm not a Utilitarian.  At least with me, if you want such an argument to apply, you're going to have to convince me of Utilitarianism first.

 

Furthermore, I'm going to have to agree with a lot of the other people on here, and warn you that you have entered anarchist/extreme minarchist territory, and at least I ask that you don't make such hasty assumptions on our beliefs.

Ego:

 

Good to know he likes porn, though!

Who doesn't like porn?

 

 

Fephisto:

Because, assuming that this is your argument, the only thing you have done is noted some things that government-funding may have played a part in.  I do not see how this makes the implication that government-funding is necessary.

 

 

This reminds me of how 'economic incentives' work. The federal government/state/locality offers funding in the form of a grant or tax credit, the company obviously accepts, and then the government agency turns around and takes credit for the 'resulting' job creation or retention and corresponding capital investment. In truth, 9 times out of 10, the company was going to do this anyway, and all the state agency has done is take money out of my pocket and give it to this business. Go to any state's department of commerce or economic development page and look up the press releases, you'll see what I'm talking about.

5. Phone. “Meucci was recognized as the first inventor of the telephone by the US House.” “[He] was unable to raise sufficient funds to pay for the patent application… In 1861 his cottage was auctioned.”

6. Lightbulb. “Göbel [invented] the first practical bulb… in 1854, a quarter of a century before Edison’s patent.”
—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_G%C3%B6bel

Yes he died pennyless too.

Just because they didn't make a profit, doesn't mean the invention was not made for profit. Are only successful ventures "for-profit"?

 

In addition to the other arguments which have been raised, many of the things which came to us as a result of government funding were in fact co-opted from the private sector for public use while they were still in development.

I think what you some of you guys need to do is not dismiss people as "leftist socialist trash" and try being polite and convincing in your arguements. If we want our lives to change for the better and become a true free-market society- its not going to happen without persuading and educating people.

Its not as if people that do have a socialist bent are thinking "mwahahahaha I love taxing these people and taking their money!!" they genuinely believe that restributing goods will bring about a better society. You're not going to convince any of them that they're wrong by insulting them- even if they insult you.

auctionguy10:

I think what you some of you guys need to do is not dismiss people as "leftist socialist trash" and try being polite and convincing in your arguements. If we want our lives to change for the better and become a true free-market society- its not going to happen without persuading and educating people.

Its not as if people that do have a socialist bent are thinking "mwahahahaha I love taxing these people and taking their money!!" they genuinely believe that restributing goods will bring about a better society. You're not going to convince any of them that they're wrong by insulting them- even if they insult you.

There are people interested in reasonable discussions, and then there are people that come to troll forums by pulling a bunch of strawmen out of their magical statist hat. The OP cleary never did any research on anything related to mises.org, and if you're not going to do some background reading before posting on a forum, and then, after being corrected many times, continue to pursue your strawmen, this is where respect ends.

There are people that value the pursuit of truth above their personal prejudices, and then there are those who don't care about anything beyond defending their untenable opinions with strawmen and lies. The former are worth talking to, the latter are a waste of time.

Eitherway, this thread is hilarious in its own way, so I'm bookmarking it for the future use when I decide I want a laugh.