I agree...but the reason why I agree is because of the bogus "right" of
a (the) federal government to forcefully and coercively extract money
from its citizens.

This is why socialists have a stake in the current money-system as much
as capitalists. Capitalists benefit by having a highly malleable
workforce and socialists benefit by claiming the right to impose their
counter-capitalism agenda on people through taxation. Real
freedom and liberty are reduced to props as the battle
between the socialist and capitalist takes centre stage.

Harry Veeder
on Tue, 3 Jun 1997, DDeBar wrote:

> Tresy -
>
> An example of the kind of thing that really sets me off is the space
> program. The development of almost all of the hardware was funded by
> military and "space race", i.e., taxpayers, dollars. Now that the
> technology is ripe, and when the US Gov't had a virtual monopoly as a
> reliable cab-driver to orbit, the whole thing is being privatized. If the
> government were a business corporation, and we were stockholders, the
> original agreements over IP and subsequent transfers of government accounts
> would provide a solid basis for derivative actions against the officers and
> Board (gov't officials) for wasting corporate assets, self-dealing, etc.,
> and the preferential treatment given many of the corporate beneficiaries
> here would perhaps even rise to the level of providing a basis for criminal
> prosecution  (I'm not sure that THIS isn't true anyway!) Basically, we
> taxpayers have set up Lochkeed, et al, in the business of launching stuff
> into space for big bucks, and they, through their corporate lobbying $$$,
> can direct the extent of competition that NASA can offer. Bad enough this,
> but as it turns out, the government is still going to be one of their
> biggest customers!
>
> - Don DeBar
> ----------
> > From: Tresy Kilbourne <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Intellectual "property"
> > Date: Tuesday, June 03, 1997 12:18 PM
> >
> > You, DDeBar, wrote:
> >
> > >My earlier post wasn't clearly written; I apologize.
> > Actually I think I was agreeing with you!
> > >
> > >What I wanted to say was that in many cases, taxpayers fund the r&d
> > >process, whether directly or by tax benefit. Also, gov't contracts
> > >guarantee an income stream, making some otherwise speculative endeavors
> > >less so. Finally, in many cases, we end up guinea pigs (particularly in
> the
> > >field of medicine). At the end of this process, someone else gets a
> > >proprietary interest in the product.
> > >
> > >NASA always boasts about the spinoff technologies from space
> exploration.
> > >What is our equity position in these tecnologies? Didn't we pay for
> their
> > >development? Didn't we guarantee a market for them? Didn't we live (or
> > >should I say, don't we live) with the risks of them (the Cassini project
> > >comes to mind...)? Does this risk assumption differ so much from that of
> > >the corporate employer that the distribution of benefits should differ
> so?
> > All true. At least 3 points: 1) IP laws are necessarily crude; 2) they
> > are a pragmatic policy designed to stimulate innovation, not necessarily
> > a statement of the just distribution of property rights; 3) no one has
> > sugested a better alternative.
> >
> > Chomsky has periodicallly cited computers as an example of
> > state-subsidized technology, as computers of course had their roots in
> > the R&D of the Military-Industrial Complex. True enough. But look at the
> > results. I am not upset that public funds helped water the seeds of
> > current computer technology. I am typing this on a computer that would
> > blow away ENIAC, sits on my desk, and costs less than a month's pay.
> > Along the way businesses made money: so what? (To be clear, I have
> > entirely different feelings about military spending per se.) Can anyone
> > say that profit margins on the hardware side of things are
> > monopolistically high? Tell it to Apple. This seems to be a success story
> > to me: government got high-tech started, then it became self-sustaining,
> > and society benefited. If, in the 50s the government had been
> > straightforward about it and said, it's a choice between publicly
> > subsidized high-tech and no high-tech at all, I think most people would
> > have said, by all means, subsidize high-tech!
>