
It’s a Myth That Entrepreneurs Drive New Technology - denzil_correa
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/09/entrepreneurs_or_the_state_innovation_comes_from_public_investment.html
======
ChristianMarks
Chomsky has been making this case for years. It's no fallacy. Every grant
application I have submitted has a provision for transferring research
products to business. Just fill out the appropriate entry. It is understood
that you don't talk about how the government takes the risk out of business by
funding R&D efforts through taxpayer-funded grant allocations to research
institutions, subsidies to business, generous patent monopoly grants and other
measures. The taxpayer funds business innovation but receives no equity.
Downvote me libertarians: I will have a mathematical treat for you non-
mathematical political pundits, in good time.

~~~
icebraining
What exactly do you believe libertarians would disagree with in your post? I'm
not a libertarian, but that the government privatizes gains and socializes
losses, that they grant subsidies and monopolies to businesses, taking the
risk out of them, seems perfectly aligned with what I read from libertarian
sources.

Libertarians don't disagree that the government funds businesses, they
disagree that it should do so.

------
jswinghammer
This article is an example of the worst political commentary. It presents the
context for this "observation" as being a decrease in both public debt and the
size of the government. No such thing has happened or is likely to happen any
time soon. The US federal government is the largest and most powerful state in
the history of the world. There is no "cut" that could make that less true
coming in the next few years at least.

The core issue is that while it may be true that the state does have
initiatives to fund business innovation there is a false choice being
presented. The example of Apple suggests that if the government didn't give
them a grant they wouldn't exist. The problem is that we can't say that for
certain at all. We don't know the outcomes in a world where the taxes or loans
taken to pay for those grants didn't happen. It's not possible to say if the
outcomes would be better or worse (for the cause of Apple Computer at least)
had that grant not existed.

The state is a mixed bag. They currently take 15% of my income to pay for my
"retirement" when if I had been able to save that I'd end up far more secure
in my retirement than I will with social security. But that said they are
using that money to pay for the life support that a lot of people need. Mix
that with the constant wars and you can understand why crediting the state for
its' light in a world of darkness is misguided.

There are a lot of other odd statements in here too such as describing the
state as a risk taker as if the state is ever punished for its' failures.
People don't even remember most of the CIA's failures as they line up for war
behind its' current allegations in Syria.

~~~
confluence
This comment is an example of the worst political commentary. It doesn't even
try to make sense, and is more a form of paranoid, libertarian verbal
diarrhoea than an actual reasoned argument.

Libertarians would have a much easier time living with the government if they
just thought of it as a corporation, upon whose land they work, live and play.

The 15% income fee is merely the cost of doing business.

Welcome to Disneyland, ahem, I mean, America.

~~~
Radim
Oh, but the issue is not whether we think of something as a "corporation" or
not. After all, that's just playing with words.

The issue is, what happens if you decide you don't want to do business with
that entity anymore?

In case of state, the punishment is prison and, resisting that, death. That is
the part that libertarians object to, and it doesn't matter whether that
entity calls itself "corporation", "mafia" or "government".

~~~
15charusername
And if it wasn't a government but instead a corporation, the only thing that
would change is that you don't even get to vote!

~~~
SiVal
What nonsense. In a free market economy, you vote every time you voluntarily
accept an offer. Not voting for a corporation, a vote that costs you your own
money, is a vote against it, because corporations die by default. If ever
people stop accepting new offers, the corporation will die. They can't force
you to accept an offer or to pay for an offer accepted by someone else.

With a government -- or a corporation supported by crony capitalism, which is
just more government -- a program doesn't have to convince the payers that
it's worth paying for. It just has to convince those with the power to take
money from others by force to do so and give them some of it.

------
pappyo
>Whether an innovation will be a success is uncertain, and it can take longer
than traditional banks or venture capitalists are willing to wait. In
countries such as the United States, China, Singapore, and Denmark, the state
has provided the kind of patient and long-term finance new technologies need
to get off the ground.

This is the crux of the problem and why the OP makes a compelling argument.

We live in a world of "innovation" where the driving force behind it is a
conglomerate of VC's whose primary concerns are their multiples and the next
fund. They are people without long-term vision.

We also live in a world where political are small men and women proposing
small ideas because their primary concern is the next election cycle.

What ever happen to greatness?

"We're putting a man on the moon in 10 years." "We're building a national
highway system." "We're building a weapon that will end wars."

Where did the will go? Where are the cries of:

"We'll be free of fossil fuels in 10 years." "We're sending a person to Mars
by 2020."

Or if you like wars on abstract combatants that never end:

"The war on ignorance"

Someone needs some vision. And right now, nobody has it.

~~~
DenisM
The Chinese Governemnt does. They had a plan to industrialize a country of a
billion people, and they are half way through as the plan continues apace.

They didn't have a choice - population growth in an agrarian country was a
disaster for the country. They had to do something or see their country plunge
into famine and chaos. And therein may be your answer - they did it because
they had to. Western societies can coast a long way on the momentum they have
picked up earlier.

Necessity is the mother of innovation.

~~~
mtts
> Necessity is the mother of innovation.

It is, but it is not the driver of it. China was an agrarian country with
insane population growth before Deng Xiaoping took office and yet the remedy
of the government at that time was to increase population growth even further
and spur on the youth in some sort of whack job ideological frenzy.

At some point, some people took some responsibility and turned the ship
around. To my mind this is the most important thing to keep in mind about the
current Chinese government: it may be staggeringly corrupt and have an
absolutely frightening human rights record, but for the past thirty years it
has done a surprisingly good job in reducing poverty for hundreds of millions
of people. This does not mean they should be forgiven their abuses, but their
successes definitely deserve credit.

~~~
DenisM
> Deng Xiaoping took office and yet the remedy of the government at that time
> was to increase population growth even further and spur on the youth in some
> sort of whack job ideological frenzy.

Can you clarify? Wikipedia does not seem to support your statement:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping#Re-
emergence_post...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping#Re-
emergence_post-Cultural_Revolution)

Thanks.

~~~
mtts
Wack job ideological frenzy: the cultural revolution

Increase population growth: One of Mao's slogans was "The more people we are,
the stronger we are". Some graphs here: [http://www.slideshare.net/isc/china-
population-policies](http://www.slideshare.net/isc/china-population-policies)

~~~
DenisM
But wait, this happened before Deng came to power. Deng oversaw dismantling of
he cultural revolution, per above Wikipedia link.

------
gruseom
Martin Wolf reviewed Mazzucato's book in the Financial Times a couple weeks
ago:

[http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/32ba9b92-efd4-11e2-a237-00144...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/32ba9b92-efd4-11e2-a237-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2dezeO157)

HN discussion at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6194175](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6194175).

I'm surprised at how controversial it is. The facts aren't in dispute. Are
they?

------
cturner
This essay makes a fallacy case, "it is this way, therefore it must be this
way". It takes a lot of liberties with evidence to come to a crazy conclusion.

I grew up in a small state in Australia. Business there keeps close with state
government: there is a stench of cronyism about much of what goes on. The
standard business model there is to wait for a state government grant
structure, and then weasel up to it with the right paperwork and hand-shaking
to get what you want. Within the bureaucracy you have people lining themselves
up to bounce out into firms.

The government maintains high taxes, and then spends those taxes either tying
itself to emerging business like this, or propping up failing business like
car companies. And it needs a large, skilled public service to keep it all
moving. The result is that labour that could be used doing something people
want is wasted, and it's harder to operate free business due to the high
taxation and bureaucracy. It's not a stalled situation: many good people do
still find good, rewarding local jobs creating real value despite this. But a
lot of talent drains away, and there's not much innovation despite a healthy
university culture.

The way things work in world cities is different and better. For the most
part, the more government stays out of business, the more success there is.

Perhaps Apple did receive some benefits in the early years. Where benefits are
there for the taking, it is rational to take them. But it is not evidence that
such benefits were critical to the success.

Governments don't pick winners - only their mates. For progress, look
elsewhere.

As an example of a paragraph that just doesn't work, "Other ways include
giving the state bank or agency that invested a stake in the company. A good
example is Finland, where the government-backed innovation fund SITRA retained
equity when it invested in Nokia. There is also the possibility of keeping a
share of the intellectual property rights, which are almost totally given away
in the current system."

* Repeatedly we see state investments in companies pursuing political objectives with their shareholding at the expense of development or the company's interest. Look at the way Lower Saxony hampers Volkswagen's development. Or oil companies anywhere they have been nationalised (Venezuela, Mexico, Russia).

* Picking Nokia as an example of innovation?

* Intellectual property is an idea created entirely by government for the purpose of picking winners. It has no philosophical underpinning - it's just arbitrary regulation.

* "which are almost totally given away in the current system" \- what does this even mean?

Awful article.

~~~
rayiner
China is pretty much a damning counter example to your whole rant, as was the
Soviet Union. Two countries that were previously economic backwaters that
became world powers because of directed government action.

~~~
hearty770
China and Russia have been capitalist for decades. Russia is doing far better
than its communist days, not to mention China.

~~~
rayiner
First, neither China nor Russia are capitalist. They have market-ish economics
with strong authoritarian government management of the economy. 43% of China's
industrial and business profit results from state owned companies.

Second, Russia is doing better now than it was at the tail end of the Soviet
Union, but technologically it progressed far more during Soviet rule than it
has since. Before the Soviet Union Russia was a total, agrarian, rural
backwater. Chronically a hundred years behind the rest of Europe. The Soviets
built all the technology and infrastructure that is keeping the country going
to this day.

------
confluence
Most companies drive what I like to call dipshit innovation. You know what I'm
talking about. The new X sandwich from McDonalds. The new X flavor from Coca
Cola. Repackaged servers from Amazon. The new X phone from Apple. A variant of
an already existing drug X with a different name by Pfizer. These things are
not hard to develop, and that makes sense, since a company's return horizon
must be on the order of 7 years or less to stay in business. Things that only
take 7 or so years to develop just cannot be that hard to do. To make real
impact requires sustained investment at a loss over decade to century level
time spans, a space in which only the largest companies in existence, namely
nation states, can compete.

Now, that's not to say that we don't need dipshit innovation. Dipshit
innovation does in fact serve a very useful purpose: it helps to reduce costs
by forcing a diverse group of small agents to survive by maximizing short term
profits, whilst simultaneously minimizing short term costs. Some of these
profits can then be pushed back into creating the next wave of things that
nation states help develop. This next wave can then be fed right back into the
free market where once again a diverse group of capitalistic agents can copy,
scale up and reduce the costs of the next generation of tech.

Problems seem to occur when there is too much of a focus on long term
investment (Communist China's/Russia's fascination with producing iron), or
when there is too much of a focus on short term investments (The world's
fascination with short term leveraged trades before the global financial
crisis).

You really want something of a 40-60 split of resources, with 40 being pushed
back into government/public institutes for long term societal level
investments, and the remaining 60 going back to the free market as an
incentive for further cost reductions.

We need both types, in the right amounts, to keep the economy chugging along.
We also need competent people working on both sides of the split for us to
move forward. What we don't need is to deify one to the exclusion of the
other.

Addendum: This talk is an amazing discussion of the ideas listed in my above
hypothesis:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyp3Bw5H0VA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyp3Bw5H0VA)
which was tipped to me from here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6310207](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6310207).

It's always nice when others back up what you say. But it seems that I'm
always a year late with said ideas (talk is from 2012, and I hadn't previously
seen it).

I blame the state for funding such radical research. I blame YouTube for not
showing me it earlier.

~~~
notdrunkatall
The vast majority of innovation comes from the private sector, but those
innovations usually go unnoticed because they aren't ground-breaking or
flashy, but are, instead, incremental. The 'dipshit innovations' you're
referring to are all related to consumer products, but incremental innovations
in private industry are what has driven the massive global increase in
economic efficiency over the last half-century, which in turn is what has
allowed us the standard of living that we enjoy today. Of course government
innovations played a role in this process, but if necessity is the mother of
all invention, then it seems obvious that had government not funded the
creation of technology A, B, or C, and if there was truly a need for it, then
they would have been invented anyways.

Furthermore, had the dollars that have been spent on government innovations
been instead allowed to remain in circulation in the economy, how many more
innovations would private industry had come up with? Put more succinctly, what
is the opportunity cost of government innovation?

~~~
confluence
> _incremental innovations in private industry are what has driven the massive
> global increase in economic efficiency over the last half-century, which in
> turn is what has allowed us the standard of living that we enjoy today_

I agree. But this would not be possible without government investment at a
loss to develop the very things the private sector incrementally innovates
upon.

> _Of course government innovations played a role in this process, but if
> necessity is the mother of all invention, then it seems obvious that had
> government not funded the creation of technology A, B, or C, and if there
> was truly a need for it_

Now here is where we diverge. Companies will not seek these type of
innovations because those that do die before they can reap any profit.

> _Furthermore, had the dollars that have been spent on government innovations
> been instead allowed to remain in circulation in the economy, how many more
> innovations would private industry had come up with? Put more succinctly,
> what is the opportunity cost of government innovation?_

Conversely, what is the opportunity cost of dipshit innovation? The answer is
clear: lack of break through innovation. Hence why I advocate a split (40 long
term government - 60 short term free market) in my above hypothesis. It's the
best of both worlds; you don't short sell the future, whilst neither ignoring
the present.

~~~
icebraining
_Conversely, what is the opportunity cost of dipshit innovation? The answer is
clear: lack of break through innovation._

How did you arrive to that conclusion? That's not clear to me at all. In fact,
it's not clear to me that break through innovation would even be possible
without incremental innovation, and vice-versa.

~~~
confluence
Hence why I advocate for a reasonable resource split where both are part of a
virtuous positive feedback cycle. You can't have one without the other.

~~~
icebraining
But then how can you claim that one has the other as an opportunity cost?

And besides, that you need the two types of innovations doesn't mean you need
the state to produce one of them. I mean, maybe we do, but it's an orthogonal
issue.

~~~
confluence
Think of the state like a massive conglomerate corporation with huge pockets,
many sub-divisions, and long investment timelines and you'll understand my
point of view.

My distinction between government and non-government is basically pocket book
size and investment timeline.

------
daemonk
Terrence Kealey would disagree:
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-
economi...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-economics-of-
science)

~~~
rafcavallaro
1\. He admits that he has no proof that private firms would take up the slack
if government stopped funding basic science research - only his bizarre notion
that science is NOT a public good.

2\. He says that government has a DUTY to fund defense research, so clearly
his whole argument excludes innovations and contributions to GDP from defense
research funded by the state.

In short, his argument is bollocks.

------
Jach
I don't really have that much to add, this just stood out to me as slimy:

"...the contract should have said: If and when the beneficiaries of the grant
make $X billion, a contribution will be made back to the NSF."

This by definition would not be a grant. If you want to eliminate grants then
by all means say so... Sometimes I look at the State as just another modern
deity, and it demands worship and tribute. Especially for things it claims to
have done in the past.

------
acjohnson55
I highly, highly recommend _Doing Innovation in the Innovation Economy_ by
William Janeway to anyone who wants to truly understand the nature of our
economy. It's basically this piece elaborated in exhaustive detail by a Ph.D
economist and 40+ year veteran of the finance world. To me, it's at once a
thorough investigation of the history of markets and the boom/bust cycle, a
defense of Keynesianism and the State as an economic player, and a memoir of a
pioneer of the modern venture capital industry.

Even more importantly, I think it's an incredible analysis of the actual
nature of our economy. We've never actually been any sort of ideologically
pure system, and Janeway argues that there's actually something very important
about how our system historically has been, as opposed to what purist
capitalists and socialists might have it be.

The biggest flaw of the book is that it really needed a gifted editor. There's
_a lot_ to the book, and it could have benefited from much more careful
organization. Janeway seems to presume a great deal of familiarity with
economics and the financial industry, and it made the book challenging for me
to fully comprehend without taking notes and looking up unknown terms myself.
But it was well worth the effort.

------
MichaelAO
The premise of this article seems to be that since the government funding of
scientific research has bore fruits, then it must be justified. The ole saying
"a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while" comes to mind. It's
worth entertaining the idea that public funding displaces private funding (at
a net loss). Burt Rutan makes this argument in his Ted talk on the space
industry
([http://www.ted.com/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space...](http://www.ted.com/talks/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html)).

In college I came across "The Economic Laws of Scientific Research" by Terence
Kealey. It's a great read for anyone interested.

------
StandardFuture
The "state" also has access to FAR more assets than any single company ever
will. The "state" can very easily define what IS the economy itself unlike a
business which is dependent on whatever the economic architecture of the
"state" is.

The reason why a lot of shit is invented by the "state" is because they can
very easily justify doing whatever they want either via big budgets or big
guns. Various "states" have chosen various justification routes in history.

When you look at the "state" as the largest and most powerful business in the
land you will realize why they try to hog up "innovation" or at least control
it.

------
Tycho
What about the cooling effect of government spending on private sector
innovation. Nobody can compete with the government, since it has unlimited
pockets and the ability to legislate, so it would be irrational for any
company to try. How do you account for that when you try to measure how much
potential the private sector has for major innovations?

~~~
Iftheshoefits
Do you have any evidence of this "cooling effect?"

------
walshemj
Rubbish some Entrepreneurs are really just me to copy cats but real ones are
innovative take Woz's inspired hardware hacking on the original apple or Clive
Sinclair even Alan Sugar with the cpc pcw and the pc 1512 - if only he had
paid more attention to quality control he could have had a UK equivalent of
Dell.

~~~
slurry
All those microcomputer designs you cited were very important but they
depended on decades of military-industrial funding for transistor
miniaturization to work.

~~~
walshemj
I was thinking in WOZ's case the innovative design of the disk II which was
much more old school analog design

------
dgreensp
If you define "innovation" narrowly as basic research, then sure, funding for
that typically comes from DARPA, NSF, and big corporations. Being science, it
doesn't even have to work out, let alone have immediate applications, let
alone have a way to make money from it, let alone pursue it.

------
jes
If you take someone's money by force, you're a thug, not an entrepreneur.

~~~
acjohnson55
Sure, if that someone owns that money, a priori.

But in real life, wealth isn't simply owned in a vacuum. It's accumulated,
possessed, and taxed within the bounds of a system of governance.

------
akuma73
What about Bell Labs?

Innovation can be done by the private sector. Just avoid going public so that
your company can make long term investments without Wall Street pressuring
your short-term results.

~~~
turar
Bell Labs was a part of a government-approved monopoly (AT&T).

------
jotm
Hey, nobody said funding can't come from the government, it's just that
private companies and individuals seem to do more with less...

~~~
acjohnson55
It's really dependent on what you're talking about. It takes massive amounts
of money to do the really long-term research that lays the foundations for
much of our private enterprise. We wouldn't have such a fruitful startup scene
for private individuals to attempt to innovate with reasonable low upfront
costs if not for decades of development in our computing and communications
industries, much of which was financed with long-term state investment. How
soon we forget.

------
fieryscribe
What's going on at Slate? First the public school article and then this?

------
robomartin
What a huge insult to people like Steve Jobs.

People who think this way and write these kinds of articles are beyond
ignorant. They are dangerously ignorant. They probably lived their entire
lives inside a reality distortion field and actually believe this shit.

Here's what I find very interesting: None of these people will ever write an
article pointing out how badly government/the state has fucked us over. They
go out of their way to attribute visionary status to the government but never
bring them to task for what they've done to society.

Examples:

    
    
      ------
    

They'll print this: The government created the Internet (false, private
enterprise took it from a limited use experiment into what it is today), you
should all bow and be thankful.

They'll never say this: The government created the internet with the goal of
creating the perfect surveillance tool to actively violate everyone's privacy
across the globe by monitoring your every move.

    
    
      ------
    

This: We owe the government for creating the GPS system.

Not this: The military created the GPS system to be able to kill people with
more efficiency and develop ever more deadly weapons. They did not create it
for you to be able to go hiking or find directions to your friends house. In
fact, they didn't even envision the possibility of something like an iPhone
ever even existing.

    
    
      ------
    

This: DARPA funds great projects and helps entrepreneurs.

Not this: DARPA is a military organization throwing money at efforts that will
help create a more powerful military and, in turn, kill people with greater
efficiency. The ultimately business of the military is to kill people when
they are asked to do so and to do it as efficiently as possible. Their
business isn't to create technology for us to enjoy while we go fishing.

    
    
      ------
    

This: Government built roads, plans cities and infrastructure and we all
benefit from this.

Not this: The US government seriously fucked up nearly all urban planning in
the US by not focusing the effort on long-term efficient mass transit. They
created abominations such as Los Angeles, where it is nearly impossible to
exist without a car. Their actions have created untold amounts of
environmental pollution, health problems and inefficiencies because we have to
live with millions of unnecessary cars and trucks on the road. This failing
has cost us for generations and will likely continue to cost us for
generations to come.

Through this horrible failure in planning they have enslaved us to our
vehicles. Nearly every working person in the US has to own a car. Families
spend tens of thousands of dollars purchasing and maintaining them as well as
thousands of dollars a year in fuel. Massive numbers of trucks on the road are
added for good measure. The environmental pollution is of monumental
proportions. The human loss is also hard to measure. With efficient and
ubiquitous mass transit people would have the opportunity to make use of their
commute time for purposes other than being a control system. Perhaps read a
book and learn something.

    
    
      ------
    

This: Our government wisely spends billions a year in foreign aid.

Not this: Our government has caused us to lose standing and respect in the
world by irresponsibly throwing money around to buy friendships and, often-
times, support brutal regimes. Some of these actions have led to increased
anger towards the US and have turned the focus of terrorists towards our
shores.

    
    
      ------
    

This: Governments look after our safety and freedom.

Not this: Governments world wide are responsible for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of
people killed in military conflicts. Governments start wars, not people, not
the local butcher, baker or teacher. Governments. They have killed hundreds of
millions of people with almost no consequence to themselves. When did you last
see a president or a sentator take their own life for launching us into a
bullshit failed war and killing people for no good reason?

No, it's "we the people" who have to live with the consequences of their
actions, it isn't "we the ruling party". They've made a mess out of the world.
Period. The mess the UK and the US have made out of the Middle East is hard to
understand. Go back and read about how some of those countries came to be.

    
    
      ------
    

This: Our government wisely makes economic rules and creates programs that
benefit us all.

Not this: The US government is absolutely responsible for the economic
collapse of 2008. Their rules created the framework that allowed the real-
estate market to devolve and ultimately derail. Without their "regulation" it
would have been absolutely impossible for the series of events that ultimately
took down the world to have taken place.

Furthermore, as things were devolving our all-knowing, all-seeing, wise and
learned government never took a step towards fixing the problem and stopping
what was coming.

    
    
      ------
    

This: Government social programs are great. We should be thankful.

Not this: Government social programs have created generations of people with
no drive to succeed, educate themselves and contribute to society in any
meaningful manner. It is, in many ways, economic slavery of the worst possible
kind.

    
    
      ------
    

This: Governments promote travel, tourism and business at an international
level.

Not this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6309618](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6309618)

    
    
      ------
    

This: The State looks after it's citizens.

Never this: Hitler. The treatment of women in the Arab world. Genocide. The
Soviet Union. Cuba. Dictators. Kings. Gay rights. Abortion. Never being able
to truly own your home because you owe them taxes. The IRS. NSA.

    
    
      ------
    

Don't get me wrong. We need small and limited government. We simply don't need
what most have turned into. It is a huge monster that gobbles it all up and,
ultimately, does little to make our lives better in the long term.

"With great power comes great responsibility" often derails into "With great
power come greater abuses to humanity".

People that champion the idea that we owe almost everything to the State
seldom take the time to bring the State to task for what maladies they've
inflicted upon the people. If they do it at all it is very rare and lacking
intensity and longevity.

They truly think that the State is great. Lots of us see that the emperor has
no clothes and that the State needs to have as small a part in our lives as
possible. Not sure what it will take for others to see this short of a total
collapse, which is in our future if things don't change. Get ready to learn a
painful lesson.

~~~
robomartin
I find it very interesting when people down-vote something like this without
refuting even one of the examples provided. It can only mean that the down-
voting is based on blind ideology rather than facts. Every example I provided
is factually supported, yet the indoctrinated can't see past their ideology to
even consider the fallacy in their arguments.

They applaud the government for creating the GPS system but recoil when
someone points out it was created to aid in the military mission of killing
people and not for Apple to use on their iPhone. That someone offends their
sensibilities and they refuse to look at reality. The State is always perfect
in intentions, foresight and results. Anything else is blasphemy.

And that's part of the reason we have the problems we have.

~~~
novalis78
could not agree more. thanks for the long post - I actually came back to see
whether this particular post got any responses - shared a copy with my
friends.

