Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Split - Politics of space exploration

Originally posted by wwworry
put a billion in the Philadelphia school system and it would lead to great discoveries.
Put 1.5 billion in and see how many stable marriages result from increased prospects.

It would truely be a great voyage.

(isn't Mars the god of war?)
Click to expand...

Personally, I can't see it as being that simple. Throw money at this problem and it will go away.

No.

One of the greatest benefits from the manned space program has always been the inspiration that it has had on people to stay in school.

You need more than money to make school great...
 
Originally posted by Snowy_River
I'm not sure whether or not to take you seriously. Certainly you can see that this comment was meant as a political tongue-in-cheek criticism of Bush policy elsewhere on this planet, can't you?
Click to expand...

while i can agree with you on this point, this is not an unusual point of view when it comes to middle eastern countries and their beliefs of the us. news articles are typically spun, or you may call it propaganda.

i just ate and i am lazy, but i am sure if you go googling, you can see what i mean.

you can even refer to the united nations report on nation development (or something like that). they find that people in the middle east are generally pessimistic. not surprising though. i would be too if there were bombs going off every day in chicago.

i also wish i could remember the name of the national geographic documentary i was watching about the middle east. newly "tecno-ized" people are reading things on the internet and taking them as the truth due to the "patina of technology". one example of this is that many of the people interviewed believed that all jews were warned early by the government about 9/11 so they would not go into work and be in danger. people sincerely believed this. you and i both know this is ridiculous, but an uneducated person is easily fooled by such propaganda.
 
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Personally, I can't see it as being that simple. Throw money at this problem and it will go away.

No.

One of the greatest benefits from the manned space program has always been the inspiration that it has had on people to stay in school.

You need more than money to make school great...
Click to expand...

except we don't throw money at schools and we never have. THere are a couple of schools where they do throw money at them and guess what, it works better than not enough money.

So what you're hoping for is some vast cultural sea change and then magically everything will be all right. What about starting with some basic things like small class sizes, good buildings, and well trained well paid teachers? I'm sick of that "It's hopeless." talk while starving the districts.

Really, who cares if there are micro-organisms on Mars when kids here can't get a decent textbook? You claim the greatness of knowledge and yet deny it to thousands of children.
 
Originally posted by wwworry
except we don't throw money at schools and we never have. THere are a couple of schools where they do throw money at them and guess what, it works better than not enough money.

So what you're hoping for is some vast cultural sea change and then magically everything will be all right. What about starting with some basic things like small class sizes, good buildings, and well trained well paid teachers? I'm sick of that "It's hopeless." talk while starving the districts.

Really, who cares if there are micro-organisms on Mars when kids here can't get a decent textbook? You claim the greatness of knowledge and yet deny it to thousands of children.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I agree with you that we need to spend more money on education. I don't think that it's hopeless. However, there's a lot more wrong with the educational system than just lack of money, and I don't think simply saying 'let's spend money on schools instead of the space program' really solves anything. I think that both of these have to be made priorities. NASA's budget over the next five years is an average of about $17.2 Billion per year. Compare that to the fact that the budget for the Iraqui occupation is already on the order of $200 Billion. If NASA had had the same budget as has been invested in Iraq, we'd likely already have people on Mars. And, if history is any indication, we'd have more money available to invest in improving schools.

Anyway, I don't want to rant about this. About schools I don't think we disagree. I just object to anyone who places space exploration at what seems to be too low a priority...
 
There's not enough money for schools.

There's not enough money for healthcare.

There's not enough money for some political candidates (see campaign finance reform thread).

There's not enough money for space exploration.

There's not enough money.

Not that I expect you guys to solve all the country's problems -- at least not to, say, Frohickey's satisfaction :) (we love ya, Frohickey, even if we deserve to die!)... but, when and how will there ever be enough money? Or is this imperfect system the best we can hope for?

I know it's something of a zero-sum game. Of course Congress hocks us up to our googly-eyes, but pretty much, more money for defense or schools or NASA is less money for something else which seems important too. I'm not saying we can't prioritize, but to hear it, we can't ever have enough money. Can we? Without trampling personal property rights? How?

Or is it just like most personal budgets -- the more we make, the more we "have to" spend?

Just askin'
 
I should say that I do support the space program and I have seen in so many cases where people/agencies with nothing are pitted against eachother. I am guilty of implying that the space program should be gutted for education programs.

My reaction was based on the feeling that Bush's Mars program was just an election year promice that he won't have to pay for and does not really care about. This is a guy who consistently muzzles science agencies when he does not like the facts and someone who consistently proposes things but never provides funding for them (no child left behind, aids funding). In short, if there is no money for big business in this program it is probably not going to happen.

Meanwhile, we do have a crisis in k-12 education funding. We have had one for years. Why not fix it?
 
Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Not that I expect you guys to solve all the country's problems -- at least not to, say, Frohickey's satisfaction :) (we love ya, Frohickey, even if we deserve to die!)... but, when and how will there ever be enough money? Or is this imperfect system the best we can hope for?

Can we? Without trampling personal property rights? How?
Click to expand...

Huh? Since when have I advocated wealth redistribution or having government solve everyone's problem?

Personal property rights, if it were only observed with as much vigor as 1st Amendment and other civil rights would go a long way to solve these problems in an equitable way. But somehow, we treat property rights as second hand rights As Janice Brown, (may she be confirmed in the future) said...
"Theft is still theft even when the government approves of the thievery," she declared. "The right to express one's individuality and essential human dignity through the free use of property is just as important as the right to do so through speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion."
Click to expand...


As to 'deserving to die', my answer to that is what William Munny told Bill Daggett in 'Unforgiven"... 'deserves got nothing to do with it'. :D

I think I've elaborated my feelings with regards to forced wealth redistribution.
 
Originally posted by Frohickey
I think I've elaborated my feelings with regards to forced wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...

like the $1.50 charge to access your own money?

or tax deductions on vacation homes?

or the $90 billion/year on corporate subsidies/welfare that will kick up to $175 billion/year after the medicare for HMOs plan starts?
 
Originally posted by Frohickey
...Personal property rights, if it were only observed with as much vigor as 1st Amendment and other civil rights would go a long way to solve these problems in an equitable way...
Click to expand...

Not to pick on you, Frohickey, but this is an argument that I've had with certain others before. Historically, we've tried treating personal property rights as fundamental. What was the result? The poor became second class citizens, and even indentured workers, hardly better than slaves. Child labor ran rampant. The rich tended to look down on the poor as worthless, and rarely gave to charities to help them.

That system didn't work. It certainly didn't solve the problems that we're talking about. If anything it made them worse. Now, we're trying a new system. It's not working great, either, but it is working better. In time we'll try something else new. Hopefully it'll be even better. The greatest thing about the system of government in the US is that it's constantly changing and growing. Sometimes it takes steps in the wrong direction, but that's part of the process.

"We have created a system in which every four years there is a peaceful revolution."
 
Actually, it's nothing new. Property rights are not absolute, and neither are any other rights. A system of absolute rights is unsustainable, if only because rights will inevitably come into conflict, and one will have to yield to another.
 
Frohickey, as a failed Libertarian, I try to agree with you in theory, but theory and reality often collide.

In a Libertarian society (which seems to be your leaning), gov't would provide less, but individuals and charities would step in to fill the gap as much as possible. (At least I hope you would prefer that charities help those unable to provide for, say, their healthcare costs due to catastropic illness or their own poverty.)

The problem is that once gov't decides to provide a basic "safety net" for the absolute bottom rung, there is the creeping call to provide for the next rung up, ad infinitum, as we witness now. It's very hard to draw a line and say "this much gov't is enough, we don't need more". And taxpayers see their money going away and figure, I can't afford to donate to charities anymore. So you get an endless loop of more gov't and less charity.

I don't know any answers. I do know that most people are not going to agree with your statement about people "deserving" to die if they cannot afford healthcare. However, I myself have a really really really hard time looking at anyone born after the Surgeon General's cigarette warning, who's dying of lung cancer after smoking their lungs out, and saying, "That person deserves my money to help with their health care costs."
 
I've never run into a defrocked libertarian before. :)

Yes, responsible democracy is a hard work. It doesn't provide the nice neat answers, with all of the loose ends tied up, that some seem to desire. The lines are not meant to be drawn, they are designed to be moveable.
 
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Actually, it's nothing new. Property rights are not absolute, and neither are any other rights. A system of absolute rights is unsustainable, if only because rights will inevitably come into conflict, and one will have to yield to another.
Click to expand...


One of my favorite pet peeves is that people often talk exclusively about their rights, without talking about what, in my book, must go hand-in-hand with any talk of rights. That is, of course, responsibilities. If you're going to exercise the right of freedom of speech, then you must embrace the responsibility in using your speech wisely. You do not, for example, have the right to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater, simply because it is not responsible to do so. If you want to have the right to own a gun, then you must be responsible with it.

It is when responsibilities are neglected that rights must be modified.

In the context of our discussion, if you want the right to keep your own money and not have it distributed for general health care, then you have the responsibility to help provide for those less fortunate than you. If you don't, then the lower class will eventually revolt, as it will slowly grow larger and larger. It is the right of the upper classes to make more money, but it is their responsibility to help elevate the standard of living of the lower classes. This responsibility was severely neglected about a century ago, and the government stepped in and modified the rights of the upper classes (and eventually even the not-so-upper classes) to take care of the responsibilities.

In some sense, I believe that the only true rights we have are the rights to make our own choices (with full knowledge of the consequences of those choices), and to die. Everything else falls into the range of being negotiable within the societal system in which we live.
 
Originally posted by 2jaded2care
The problem is that once gov't decides to provide a basic "safety net" for the absolute bottom rung, there is the creeping call to provide for the next rung up, ad infinitum, as we witness now.
Click to expand...

I think that it's not so much a question of always asking for the next rung, so much as it's a question of what is a 'basic' safety net? The on going debate, as I see it, is about trying to find the right amount of provision to truly be a basic safety net. I don't know of anyone who would argue that all health costs should be covered for everyone, including elective and cosmetic surgeries. From what I've read, Oregon's health care system is an admirable stab at getting it right.

And taxpayers see their money going away and figure, I can't afford to donate to charities anymore.
Click to expand...

Well, even in times of tax cuts or disasters, people don't give that much to charities. There have been studies that show that when there is some kind of disaster more money isn't given to charity, it's just given to different charities.

Even if all the money that was going into health care from taxes were suddenly refunded to the tax payers, is there anyone here that thinks that the same amount would then be donated to charity health care organizations? I certainly don't.

However, I myself have a really really really hard time looking at anyone born after the Surgeon General's cigarette warning, who's dying of lung cancer after smoking their lungs out, and saying, "That person deserves my money to help with their health care costs."
Click to expand...

There's a two edged sword here, though. First, in theory, their medical expenses are being paid for by the taxes on the cigarettes that they, themselves, have bought over the years. A huge percentage of the price of a pack of cigarettes is taxes. Second, again in theory, the money from the settlement with Big Tobacco is supposed to go toward that, amoung other anti-smoking things. Now, while theory isn't perfectly in line with reality, it may be true that some significant portion of the road that you drive on to go to work was paid for with cigarette tax dollars. So, it's a little hard for me to accept your argument that your tax dollars shouldn't pay something back.
 
Originally posted by Snowy_River
It is when responsibilities are neglected that rights must be modified.

In the context of our discussion, if you want the right to keep your own money and not have it distributed for general health care, then you have the responsibility to help provide for those less fortunate than you.
Click to expand...

How about the responsibility of those less fortunate to NOT be a burden? Or is responsibility only required of the fortunate ones?
 
link
U.S. Eyes Space as Possible Battleground





Sun Jan 18, 2:27 PM ET



Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!



By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s plan to expand the exploration of space parallels U.S. efforts to control the heavens for military, economic and strategic gain.
Click to expand...

Apparently the hawks are happy about the return to space because now we can "develop, operate and maintain space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space, and if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."

I can't believe we're going to militarize the one place left that isn't already bristling with weapons and national animosity. Even Bush's moonbase pissing contest is better than this "we will dominate you" bull****. Why is it that the first thing we think of when we find a new opportunity is to fight over it?
 
Originally posted by Frohickey
How about the responsibility of those less fortunate to NOT be a burden? Or is responsibility only required of the fortunate ones?
Click to expand...

How about the notion that rights & responsibility don't apply to being dealt bad health or good health. It's not a choice one makes.
 
Originally posted by pseudobrit
How about the notion that rights & responsibility don't apply to being dealt bad health or good health. It's not a choice one makes.
Click to expand...

who was it that said life was fair? ..it happens.

it is NOT the government's responsibility to insure that, if life goes wrong, you are ok... unless i missed something in the constitution or bill of rights.
 
When this nation was founded, there was a system of communities where those who fell on hard times were taken care of.

We've lost this system of community.

Saying, "oh, it's too bad you got cancer, little Jimmy. Life's not fair, and since your parents are poor too, you're going to die even though we can cure it, because only those with money to pay for their lives are going to be able to save them" is essentially what you're advocating.

I'm against the idea that life (or health) is a commodity. I'm sorry for those who feel it is.
 
Originally posted by Snowy_River
One of my favorite pet peeves is that people often talk exclusively about their rights, without talking about what, in my book, must go hand-in-hand with any talk of rights. That is, of course, responsibilities. If you're going to exercise the right of freedom of speech, then you must embrace the responsibility in using your speech wisely. You do not, for example, have the right to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater, simply because it is not responsible to do so. If you want to have the right to own a gun, then you must be responsible with it.
Click to expand...

Exactly so. You should read the book "Rights Talk" by Mary Ann Glendon. In fact I think every American should. She makes a very lucid and informed argument for a better way to discuss rights in our society. I've been recommending this book for years and lent my copy out numerous times.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...486625/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-3765280-4525447?
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Originally posted by pseudobrit
How about the notion that rights & responsibility don't apply to being dealt bad health or good health. It's not a choice one makes.
Click to expand...

How about the ones that drink lots of liquor?
How about the ones that smoke a lot of cigars?
How about the ones that jump out of planes?
How about the ones that have sex with lots of strangers?

You see, we can't spy on people to see if that is what they did. That would be an affront to the right to privacy.

Now, I would not be averse to having a set of basic needs given when a person is down on their luck, and govt can be the one to help too... but if its in the form of a loan that has to be repaid.

Or a govt account that the person contributes to while they are not down on their luck that they can draw upon when their luck is bad (obviated if the person is responsible in their spending and saving habits).

How about a cap on welfare benefits? After that cap is reached, you cannot collect anymore, and it has to be repaid afterwards. This would give the 'safety net' that you like to talk about, but it also doesn't become a neverending entitlement.

What if everyone suddenly wakes up and decides to go on the government dole?
 
How about answering the question?

The proposition's been advanced that health care should not be commodity item, because few choose to have poor health. I'd add to that the thought that having access to adequate health care so one might remain above ground is far more essential to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" then any weapon you might want to own. Yet you've vigorously defended the right to the latter, but treat the former like a luxury item.
 
The overriding difference is that all of the proposals for universal healthcare is via more taxes, instead of fees that are paid by people who choose to participate.

Also, in RKBA, there are no costs incurred by the people not willing to participate.

Come up with a healthcare program that you would support wherein unwilling people can choose to withdraw from the plan and NOT incur a cost, and I'd support that.
 
Originally posted by Frohickey
...How about a cap on welfare benefits? After that cap is reached, you cannot collect anymore, and it has to be repaid afterwards. This would give the 'safety net' that you like to talk about, but it also doesn't become a neverending entitlement...
Click to expand...

Now, I'll be the first to say that the current welfare system leaves a lot to be desired. However, I don't think that means that it ought to be abolished, as you seem to argue. I think that some form of reform is in order.

Perhaps something like making job training and job searching a paid position under welfare. That way, the system would be designed to get people back into the work force. Plus, it could limit the amount of welfare that's paid out to be based on how many hours in a week were spent training/searching. Certainly this would make a somewhat more complicated system. Certainly this is merely an outline of an idea. But this is also an attempt to make the current system better at what it's supposed to do, help people out when they're down on their luck, and get them back on their feet.

In a way, I feel sorry for you, Frohickey. It's clear that the dollar is the most important thing to you. To me this represents the breakdown of American culture and society at the core philosophical levels. It's this type of attitude that is most likely going to bring about the collapse of the United States. And it will be a collapse from within, if it happens, not from any outside force. Even more than feeling sorry for you, Frohickey, I feel sorry for the world because of the degredation of values that you represent.

Now, having said that, I'm sure that you'll get angry and be insulted. If you must, then take out that anger on me. It won't change my feeling of sorrow and loss that has come from listening to what you've had to say.

Peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back