Robert Wasley wrote:
>
> Sasha Chislenko wrote:
> > All advanced projects on the Internet that I can think of have
> > been started by private individuals and companies; the role of
> > the government is limited to watching for old issues (can a child
> > see naked butts online?), providing general resources ($ for
> > thicker carrier cables), and general regulation of development
> > (such as patent laws).
> >
> > Even if the government was doing more good than harm in any of these
> > areas, it would still mean that the visionary development is done by
> > private individuals, and the democratic governance is only able to
> > provide support for already established structures.
>
> Regarding libraries, yes, Carnegie and many more regular people have
> donated time, money, and materials for the support of the library system,
> however it survives because it has been supported by public funds
> beginning in the 19th century for the public good. Yes, I don't always
> get what I want there, yet it has and still serves a critical function for
> millions of people.
>
> Now, if we want to champion individualism over collectivism the system in
> the
> United States is a slippery target. I can not think of any part of our
> history
> that government legislation did not provide the foundation for the "rugged
> individualists" to be successful. Monroe Doctrine, easement rights for the
> railroads, build up of an industrial base by both the North and South during
> the Civil War, tariffs in the latter 19th century protecting American
> manufactuers
> from foreign compeition, the electronics industry during and after WW2,
> space
> program, DARPA, etc, etc, etc. Why it is a slippery target because the
> result, if not intention, has been to is give private enterprise a running
> start by
> using its resources to get past the hardest, most costly part and then take
> it
> from there. In this way it can not provide a clear foil in the individualism
> vs.
> collectivism arguement as would comparison to the economic/social models
> of the Third Reich, Soviet Russia, ancient Egypt or feudal China.
We have had no public weapons industries except for the Springfield
Arsenal, which deals exclusively with artillery and light infantry
weapons research. Claiming that someone that is a government contractor
is getting a collectivist push is only so because only government has a
monopoly on the use of massive force. Most all new technologies are
first applied in use on the battlefield, and people are willing to spend
whatever it takes most of the time to have a well equipped military that
can hold its own against anyone else. If this were not a world where
states held the monopoly on massive force, you would see probably more
research but less actual implementation in military hardware. Private
organizations typically are not as capable of getting other people to
spend money for them as well as government can. Corporations don't open
your wallet at the point of a gun.
>
> What history says to me that individualistic or collectivistic societies and
> philosophies are premised on distorted perspectives of who and what
> human beings are. We are both social (collective) and individual so our
> societies need to reflect a similar balance which is no mean trick and not
> always successful, but it is none the less the most correct approch.
Who is social?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:41 MDT