Your comment and the dilemma you present are very interesting.
I think part of the problem is that we have reduced everything to a matter of economics and profit. It has become the measure of value for everything, so much so that intelligent, compassionate people can discuss the value of human life in terms of dollars and jobs.
So, I think the problem you suggest is the product of a false choice.
That is, IMO if we had a cure for cancer, it is not that we should find it unfair that the "wrong" people might profit. It is that we should expect that no one would profit. Some things should be done for the good of all humanity. Why need there be financial incentive in ending suffering? And, why should there be financial reward in doing so?
This is the core problem of a capitalism run amok. Governments the world over should be engaged in benevolent research as an expression of the will of the people they represent, and for the betterment of same. It is, in my view, a grievous mistake that we must always seek a way to commercialize our activity in order to justify it.
I wouldn't have a major issue with a company profitting from the cure for cancer. On the other hand, I hate to seethe senior management of said company reaping handsome profits while people without the means to pay for it die without it. And I have major issue with sick people's inability to pay when the initial research was either done by or funded by taxpayer dollars. And then apply that same principle to all the middlemen who handle the drug and add little to no value to it, but still profit handsomely. . .but that's for another thread.
I think it's a slippery slope though: exactly who should profit and how much profit is too much? Posing those kinds of questions raises the ire of the "free market/profit motive cures everything" crowd that drives our current brand of capitalism.
Once we give something over to the machine, we introduce the very problem. IMO, we need to completely rethink what should be left to the markets vs. what we produce as a society for the good of humanity.
That's a tough one because it is beyond clear that --and I am going to use that word-- innovation does not originate in government, master plans or even companies with huge funding.
Make a list of all the major products in the last fifty years, the companies they came from and how they got started to prove the point.
I can't think of a single major scientific discovery in any scientific field over the last, say, 500 years, that was originated or planned by any government or government agency in any country or culture.
Typical examples given are such things as power plants, roads, bridges, water and sewage distribution systems and such large infrastructure projects. These, I argue, have only been created at such scales mostly out of two positions: war-time strategic needs (autobahn and US highway system) and the "natural" evolution of human settlements (as they got larger the infrastructure was a must). In other words, I have never seen any proof that any government engaged in some kind of a long-range master plan to build and deploy infrastructure in support of specific future goals.
Its not always the direct innovation that government creates, is the seeding of an environment that allows the innovation or prevents the rise of extreme elements: Agricultural and mining state colleges in the US, UC system, infrastructure projects like the Hoover Dam, bringing electricity to rural areas during the Great Depression, public work projects that allowed artists to keep on producing works of art, the Space program. All these infrastructure projects and applied research projects helped lay the groundwork for innovation. Sowing seeds and letting the next generation harvest them. The supposed pay forward of Silicon Valley.
The Internet was 100% government funded at it's start. Private companies where involved in it's creation but only as what amounted to paid contractors. And yes they had a clear goal of increasing infrastructure to aid collaboration. Or if you really hate the idea that any private funding was involved at any point, just look at GPS.
More to the point, the vast majority of recent particle Physic's, Astronomy, and basic Medical findings where government funded.
PS: There are literally thousands of counter examples but I think I destroyed your point as it stands.
You are choosing to assign the entire value of the internet to government. This is folklore that is nothing less than nonsensical. If your goal is to "destroy" my argument you have to do far better than that.
The ARPANET was going to go absolutely nowhere without private enterprise rescuing it from obscurity and launching it into every-day life like a rocket.
Government did not PLAN the internet as we know it today. They didn't even have a clue.
Back before the internet got launched to the masses the masses were using services such as Compuserve, AOL and a number of others. The "internet" was going to evolve out of one of these efforts one way or another. It just so happened that industry found something that could be leveraged to make this happen and they did. In fact, I believe Compuserve was one of the first to offer it to it's millions (yes, millions) of customers.
It's almost like the idea of giving some guy credit for the invention of the wheel. What, nobody else was going to invent the wheel if he did not? Nonsense.
For every government project that resulted in a successful transfer to private industry there's probably ten or more that are still sucking money out of all of us and are useless.
Government-funded initiatives are very important, but, please, don't give them god-like attributes as if claiming that without government programs humankind would still be rubbing two sticks together to make fire.
Both IP and TCP where invented by the us government. Just fucking looking at the protocalls makes it clear they where designed for a large global network. I could continue but you sir are an idiot, who seems incapable of accepting when there ideas are clearly wrong.
Yes, GPS is one of my favorite examples, after the internet. Maybe private enterprise would have thought it first. . .maybe someone in the private sector was thinking about it at the same as the Department of Defense, but the fact is the government got it out there first.
GPS was a military technology. The program was not developed with the forward vision of what it is being used for today.
That is the case for a lot of military technology. So, I guess, if we derive such great benefits from war and killing people by the millions we should continue to fund these great government programs. Right?
I think part of the problem is that we have reduced everything to a matter of economics and profit. It has become the measure of value for everything, so much so that intelligent, compassionate people can discuss the value of human life in terms of dollars and jobs.
So, I think the problem you suggest is the product of a false choice.
That is, IMO if we had a cure for cancer, it is not that we should find it unfair that the "wrong" people might profit. It is that we should expect that no one would profit. Some things should be done for the good of all humanity. Why need there be financial incentive in ending suffering? And, why should there be financial reward in doing so?
This is the core problem of a capitalism run amok. Governments the world over should be engaged in benevolent research as an expression of the will of the people they represent, and for the betterment of same. It is, in my view, a grievous mistake that we must always seek a way to commercialize our activity in order to justify it.