I'm fairly confused by that. I tried to post, when you responded to me, you were deliberately misinterpreting what I was saying. I was saying anything about your other posts. In fact, I even quoted the part I took exception to so there wouldn't be confusion. At any rate, sorry if I offended, let's move on from that.

Do you deny that some (or many, depending on how your want to phrase it) scientific advances rely on government funding and organization?

I know you must rely on emotion rather than intellect and facts Putin, thus your phrase "love lettes" to describe an exchange of economic ideas. Was the United States allied with Chile at the time? Is it wrong for an American economist to give economic advise to the leader of American ally? Wasn't the United States allied with the Soviet Union? Was it wrong for the United States to give economic advice and material support?
So this is your proof that Friedman was a "supporter" of Pinochet and all of his policies? Is your argument that thin and superficial.
I guess you aren't aware, and it does not surprise me one bit, that Dr. Friedman encouraged Pinochet to enact every single of his reforms because it would make the Chilean economy grow robustly and enrich the Chilean people. It was always Dr. Friedman's ideology that totalitarian regimes cannot survive the prosperity delivered to a society by economic freedom. Of course he was absolutely correct in the case of Pinochet.
The other fact you are unaware of or ignored, again no surprise at all, is that for years, the University of Chicago had a program in partnership with the Catholic University of Chile providing scholarships to Chileans to study at Chicago. Pinochet’s economic advisers were thus University of Chicago-trained, and known as the “Chicago Boys.” But Friedman’s only direct connection was when he was invited by fellow Chicago professor Arnold Harberger--who was most closely involved with the Chilean program--to give a week of lectures and public talks in Chile in 1975.

While there, Friedman did have one meeting with Pinochet, for less than an hour. Pinochet asked Friedman to write him a letter about his judgments on what Chilean economic policy should be, which Friedman did . He advocated quick and severe cuts in government spending and inflation, as well as instituting more open international trade policies—and to “provide for the relief of any cases of real hardship and severe distress among the poorest classes.” He did not choose this as an opportunity to upbraid Pinochet for any of his repressive policies, and many of Friedman’s admirers, including me, would have felt better if he had.

Again Putin, you are historically inaccurate. The founders as a group saw government power as corrupt and malignant not benign. This is why they instituted so many check and balances and established a system of federalism. Beyond that they embraced the idea of popular sovereignty that held that the governed were the source of power to create a government and that all government powers came from the people.

I support the rights of free individuals to access public goods without being discriminated against based on race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, or ethnicity.
I am specific. If you want to rely on ambiguous constructs Putin feel free.

Yonni, it is entirely my fault. I'm so used to the ad hominen approach of Putin, manganese, and others that I lost my composure. I apologize for my post to you.
Your phrase "some" is pretty imprecise to me. Why should government play any role in research Yonni? For government to play a role in research they must tax money from individual citizens, funnel it through an inefficient bureaucracy and then deliver it to the researchers. Why not forego the process of taxation and government involvement entirely? I invest in Apple because their research and innovation gives me a return on my investment. I invest directly. There is no waste etc.
I will do you the disservice of assuming that you will counter that government is the only entity that can undertake huge projects like a particle collider? How do we know that? I could easily argue that the massive government expenditures derived through taxation that paid for the particle collider in Europe crowded out funds for a private venture.
Instead of taxation why doesn't the government sale particle collider bonds to pay for the project. The Erie Canal was build by private subscriptions to state of New York bonds. That isn't the way I would go, but if you must have government in your equation isn't that the better way instead of ceding total financial control to the government without any direct benefit to the individuals whose funds were co-opted to build it.

Tettleton, the Government played a huge role in research from the mid 19th century to the mid 20th and continues to have a role, land grant institutions funded research labs etc. Government was essential to one of the mot important eras of industrial and scientific advancement, not too bad for an inefficient bureaucracy. I wish i could go through all the Am. Rev stuff and bitch slap you all with my knowledge but alas I dont have the time

Yeah your plagiarism of a Reason magazine article is very convincing.

Chile was an "ally" because the US and Friedman's Chicago boys orchestrated a coup against the Allende government which resulted in the slaughter of all political opposition to the coup not to mention a CIA inflicted economic catastrophe. This coup gave Friedman the opportunity to implement his terrible and unworkable policies with disastrous consequences for the Chilean people. How can you say he didn't support Pinochet's policies when Pinochet got his policies from Friedman and the Chicago boys which Friedman trained?

All Friedman did was bash Allende and give ideological cover to the Chilean junta. Conservatives have never stopped adoring the general. Hayek said he preferred an authoritarian liberal government to a democratic government that might have some social safety net. This is the kind of 'freedom' you people offer us.

Santa, if by land grants you mean the public schools established by the Northwest Ordinances or the Agriculture and Mine universities then your definition of government involvement basically says that any invention by anyone educated in a public school or university is proof of the crucial role of government in research then your generality borders on the ridiculous. Go right on about the Revolution my bitch slapping friend. I love to make fools of conceited individuals online myself.
If you mean the land grants given to the railroad companies you make a fool of yourself.
Government wasn't essential to research at all in the 1800's in the United States.

I'd argue that, because there isn't much to be gained monetarily from projects like CERN, there wouldn't be interest from the private industry. Things like this are generally financial sinkholes.

The Erie Canal has financial incentive. Building a neutrino observatory in Sudbury doesn't. However, it doesn't better society, imo, by adding to our scientific body of knowledge. Building large observatories and sending satellites to the far reaches of the solar system don't generate money but need large sources of funding and organization from somewhere.

*does, not doesn't

Putin, so now you must move your target to the United States alliance with Chile as a means to talk about Allende?
How far afield you must go because you are totally befuddled by the statement Mr. Friedman made that a society that put equality before freedom gets little of both but a society that puts freedom before equality gets a great quantity of each.
Continue your red herring that now has you ranting about Allende.
I appreciate your surrender on the point that freedom is more important than equality.

Yonni, what incentive do you site to take money from an individuals through taxation to build the neutrino observatory at Sudbury? This is no trivial debate. This debate began in our nation in the early 1800's when groups began to advocate that the Federal government fund infrastructure projects and were defeated continuously.

Putin, let me know when I am writing a research paper and I will supply you with a bibliography. I appreciate that you can't sustain the characterization of the relationship between Friedman and Pinochet you claimed in your love letter joke of a post.

I say that these projects wouldn't happen without government funding because there isn't enough industry backing for projects with next to zero industry backing. It's hard to site evidence because these projects were obviously funded with government money but, based on the fact that there is no incentive for private investment, I'd guess that they wouldn't have happened without the government.

Now, debating whether or not scientific exploration without application betters society is another debate entirely...

Yonni, I agree that some projects would not get built if government did not use its coercive tax power to move the funds from private individuals to these projects.

OK, so now that we agree on that. The only debate then is if these projects "better society", right?

@ Chew

"Go right on about the Revolution my bitch slapping friend. I love to make fools of conceited individuals online myself. "

I wouldn't definitely describe somebody who has addressed me in a derogatory fashion in the same fashion that I've been addressed. That kind of speech unveils your visceral and thus irrational way of reasoning.

Besides, you didn't actually answered my post so I guess you either didn't see it or don't have an answer to it. Anyway, I completely endorse Yonni's point as you'll always need some kind of institution, let's call it government, to face those long-term investments that private coorps are in no way inclined to embrace.

@ Chew

"Go right on about the Revolution my bitch slapping friend. I love to make fools of conceited individuals online myself. "

I wouldn't definitely describe somebody who has addressed me in a derogatory fashion in the same fashion that I've been addressed. That kind of speech unveils your visceral and thus irrational way of reasoning.

Besides, you didn't actually answered my post so I guess you either didn't see it or don't have an answer to it. Anyway, I completely endorse Yonni's point as you'll always need some kind of institution, let's call it government, to face those long-term investments that private coorps are in no way inclined to embrace.

We can't debate that Yonni because I dispute validity of a "better society" argument and characterize it as a false choice. The only government function that promotes the public good is the one I started this thread about, government's only true function is the equal, tireless protection of individual rights. The only way to fund any project is to convince individuals to voluntarily fund it. If you can't get it funded under those restrictions too bad.

sorry for the double post

Lin Biao, where did you use that ID to post to me Tettlton's Chew, unless of course you are SantaClausowitz as well. What kind of cyberspace creep has multiple ID's on one website?

If Lin Biao isn't SantaClausowitz I guess he is an individual who doesn't take the time to read the thread and realize that SantaClausowitz used the phrase "bitch slap" to me. In either case he is a fool.

Um, ok. Well, using that guideline there's obviously no debate.

bahaha it seems we've found Putin's alter ego

Though this conversation has previously been diverted by those who live beneath the bridge of understanding, you're fooling yourself if we're not strolling across it and singing. That factualization shines in the life that chose you. I bet that life is loveless, and I can tell you're addicted to rationalization from the way you shake while you type.

I love the phrase "while you ignore the suffering of others" used by socialists to justify their use of government taxing power and police power to take the productive output of one citizen, funnel it through a bloated, corrupt bureaucracy, arbitrarily assign it to another citizen, and then make the indefensible claim that it was all scientific and society is better.

"This debate began in our nation in the early 1800's when groups began to advocate that the Federal government fund infrastructure projects and were defeated continuously."

Tettleton you have no idea what you are talking about, the Fed Government was intimately involved in funding internal projects throughout the nineteenth century in the west and the south. The intercontinental railroads etc. and the Fed government supported research directly to the point where R+D departments were not part of major corperations until following WWI, government funded research in universities provided advancement in industry and agriculture. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. When I get back home in a week and a half Ill be glad to quote textbooks to show you how wrong you are. This mythical view of Am. history you have shows how little you know, the Fed government was intimately involved in everything from reconstruction to suburbia to the space program.

And in case you didnt get my point, you only know wide generalizations based on old myths. BTW, the Am. Revolution was largely won by French and Continental (regular) Soldiers not militia. The Militias battles with a few (ie. one or two exceptions including Guilford Courthouse) were derided fiercely by those at the time by Americans (I have read the documents and written papers on it). You bring up the battle of Saratoga to show the greatness of the militia, but it was regular troops of the Continental army that fought the battles of Saratoga and Bemis Heights and captured Burgoyne. It wasn't until after the war and the Newburgh conspiracy that the myth of the "Farmer with his trusty Gun" beating the british was born. In the late Eighteenth century the old Continental army regular units and all standing armys were viewed suspiciously. Americans convinced themselves that the once derided militia were their saviors. This continued until that same militia got its ass handed to it in the war of 1812 and the Continental Army, rather than be seen as a band of rabble were seen as heroes of the revolution. The militia myth never truly died though and continues to this day.

Santa Claus, since you obviously need an education in American History I will being yours today.
To begin with you need to learn what a century is.
The nineteenth century that you keep mentioning began in 1800 end until 1899.
The Trans-continental railroad did not begin construction until after the American Civil War began because the southern states had been blocking Federal funding of infrastructure projects from the end of the war of 1812 in 1815 until the beginning of the American Civil War.
Once you come to grasp this irrefutable fact I will begin your education on the motivation behind the southern delegation in the Congress.
For a particular examples, which I see you are unable to give because of course you are discussing fantasy and not fact, the John Quincy Adams administration tried repeatedly to federal fund infrastructure projects and was repeatedly rebuffed.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 tried to build the trans-continental railroad and ended up failing.
These are called specific statement Santa Claus.
Something else you seem incapable of making.
For instance you use the phrase "internal projects" whatever that means.
I especially like your "Fed Government supported research to the point where R+D departments were not part of major corporations until following WWI.
Whatever that nonsensical statement means.
It might help if you would give an example of what you are talking about to illustrate your point, but of course that is a process that any undergraduate has mastered so I guess that means you haven't reached that stage of basic education yet.
When you get back home from your special ed summer school next week please "bitch slap" me as you posted earlier.
I can't wait to read about your endless list of examples of massive federal expenditure on infrastructure projects from 1815-1860 since it will obviously be groundbreaking work since it didn't happen.