Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
I agree that the market made it cheaper and more accessible, largely through mass production and a refining of the technology over time.. but it did sound like you were saying we don't need govt research cause private companies could in theory do that research instead (without taking on a govt contract or subsidies). It's a common sort of libertarian talking point. The problem is that they don't do so largely because the incentive structure wouldn't be there.
E.g. space x would never have existed if NASA didn't pave the way and create the necessary infrastructure through expensive, immediately non-profitable research.
|
What precipitated this whole discussion was commentary on the "evils" of private ownership. But that kind of shift would eliminate the market as we define it today and leave government as the sole "power" in society. I think regulation and innovation are great if they come from the government, but at the end of the day all governments are megacorporations. They need pressure of some kind from outside or they won't improve.
Without any outside pressure from something like, say, capitalist market forces, the government would limit and highly censure what actually trickles down to the rest of the population in regards to technology (assuming they developed something that could be utilized by the population as a whole).
I find these discussions interesting though because it's fun to be challenged. I haven't seen a model of society that avoids the consolidation of power at scale, and I'd be interested is seeing what it would take to avoid an inherent problem that, Marx for example, wasn't able to get beyond.