Quote:
Originally Posted by Zachstar
I guess viewpoints depends. Perhaps you had an "interesting" youth? Not trying to say your age as I don't know but many people who were into the movements of the 60s went right due to how they viewed their younger selves. Tho I tend to notice their right is a bit right of center not extreme right.
Perhaps you saw your face as someone who wanted nukes to be outlawed. Military to do whatever.. Maybe even a socialist aspect (As some were back then) Maybe that is why you see dems and liberals as such. Tho it has tended to move to the right a bit. Especially with my viewpoint of Tecnological Progressive which is only a bit left of center and advocates a "Left" approach to gov involvement in technology research and use.
If that was the case perhaps then your shift wasnt as extreme in my opinion. I advocated violence against an entire region and advocated removing rights from homosexuals (Back then I think its safe to say I was a homophobe) My shift was extreme in comparison in my opinion. It had to be. My viewpoints got this country in a mess with the wars.
|
Nah, dude. I was born in 1982, into a very conservative family. Your shift was no more extreme than mine, as I also felt the same way, then went left, then back right again. My youth probably wasn't any more interesting than yours. I just got older, saw a bit of the world, and this is where I've landed. I'm just another tea party people being people.
I think we're more alike than you might suppose, but let me explain. You describe yourself as a "technological progressive". I can't say I blame you. I was that way for most of my life. Still am, as a matter of fact. I really think that technology will solve all of mankind's problems. You could even call me a technophile, despite my bass-ackwards redneck ways.
The only place we differ in this respect is in how that technology is to be obtained in the most efficient means possible. You prefer government investment, which is the most direct means, and I say that government has never been efficient at doing anything, and that we should rely upon the market to dictate technlogical development.
Both arguments have their points; Government investment is direct. We know what the money is going for, and an agency is established to oversee and undertake development in that field. Given enough time and money, it will produce the desired result. Usually.
Private investment is indirect, and you may well not see what you want for a good time, but the market directs investment and innovation to where it is wanted most, by virtue of the fact that it simply cannot do otherwise. If it did, it would cease to exist because it is not profitable. You may not get fusion power or armies of UAVs through the private market, but you will get whatever is the most cost-efficient at the time. Usually.
What I think places the private system above the government system is that the private system
must perform while the government system
might perform, eventually. Most of the time, government systems produce substandard results, not because the intentions are misguided, but because the way in which they are pursued is very inefficient. Just consider how much progress we have made in space exploration, or power production, or just about anything you'd care to imagine, as compared to what computers and phones and electronic finance and other minimally-regulated industries have achieved in the same timespan. Then go stand in line at the DMV and see what you think. Personally, I'd rather have the miraculous inventions that the market produces on a regular basis. I just wish that businesses and entrepeneurs and speculators had more to invest, and more freedom with which to invest.
More than anything, I would like you to consider the possibility that government may not know what is best, and where it does know what is best it often screws everything up. Por ejemplo, you may remember the thread you had where we discussed alternative energy sources. I think it was caled "A Real Energy Future" or something like that. In that thread, I was championing nuclear power as a source of cheap energy. Since then, nuclear power has been embraced and construction is now underway (and in most cases, under consideration) for many new nuclear plants. You'd think I'd be happy, but I'm not. I was totally wrong about nukes. They're a great source of power, and very efficient, true enough, but the sheer amount of red tape surrounding them still makes them unprofitable, so they must get government subsidies. I am no longer of the opinion that nukes are great. Natural gas and coal are the most economically-feasible power sources today, and probably ten years from now. It seems little has changed.
Now, I'm not saying that I have totally given up on nuclear power, or even other alternative enegry sources. Far from it. But what I have realized is that the problem lies more with the policymakers than with the policy itself. Generations of energy policy and legislation are distorting the natural price mechanisms of the market. People no longer buy what is best suited to their own needs, they buy what is best suited to their own needs as amended by price controls and energy policy as defined by the same government that has yet to implement a satisfactory energy policy.
I can appreciate your idealism, ZS, but give a thought as to what kind of machine you are going to have to build in order to realize your ideas. Someone is going to have the power to implement those decisions and it is not likely going to be someone like you. I know this because I know you're not the kind of cutthroat bastard who usually succeeds in the world of politics. Most likely, it will be someone with an altogether different agenda. Fix the disease before you start prescribing cures for the symptomns.
This is just my opinion, but I'd like you to think about it a little.