4 ms·

But the government that delivers this poor ROI has produced John Carmack. Who is to say that some of the "inefficiencies" in the system did not lead to John bec

But the government that delivers this poor ROI has produced John Carmack. Who is to say that some of the "inefficiencies" in the system did not lead to John becoming the person he is today? The results depends on what is being measured. If you're measuring dollars in vs. dollars out, then that is one thing. But if your measuring the "number of John Carmack's produced" then the government is 100% efficient. It's not unlike someone climbing Mount Everest and then looking back and saying "Mount Everest is easy to climb". From the perspective of the person who has successfully made the climb, it is easy. But you can't apply that perspective to the vast majority who have not made the climb.

adolph 16y ago
But the government that delivers this poor ROI _today_ has produced John Carmack _many_years_ago._ My reading of the linked article is that ROI is trending in the wrong direction. Systemic inefficiencies or the flying spaghetti monster may have lead to the personage of John Carmack. To me, the article didn't sound like he wants to remove the ladder now that he is up; it sounded like he thinks that ladder is becoming less stable for everyone.
dualogy 16y ago
"But the government that delivers this poor ROI has produced John Carmack" I don't think the man did anything to deserve such an insulting blow. "Who is to say that some of the "inefficiencies" in the system did not lead to John becoming the person he is today?" If you are going to argue that it's government efficiencies that "produce" creative, productive men, rather than their parents and their own effort -- I think the burden of proof is on you. Good luck. "But if your measuring the "number of John Carmack's produced" then the government is 100% efficient." You are arguing that "as long as there is just one talented, capable person growing up in North Korea, its government is doing a splendid job and deserves all its powers. So much so they would be granted to it voluntarily by the people, even if they hadn't outgunned them in the first place. "But you can't apply that perspective to the vast majority who have not made the climb." What's your point here relating to this discussion?

adolph 16y ago

But the government that delivers this poor ROI _today_ has produced John Carmack _many_years_ago._ My reading of the linked article is that ROI is trending in the wrong direction. Systemic inefficiencies or the flying spaghetti monster may have lead to the personage of John Carmack. To me, the article didn't sound like he wants to remove the ladder now that he is up; it sounded like he thinks that ladder is becoming less stable for everyone.

dualogy 16y ago

"But the government that delivers this poor ROI has produced John Carmack" I don't think the man did anything to deserve such an insulting blow. "Who is to say that some of the "inefficiencies" in the system did not lead to John becoming the person he is today?" If you are going to argue that it's government efficiencies that "produce" creative, productive men, rather than their parents and their own effort -- I think the burden of proof is on you. Good luck. "But if your measuring the "number of John Carmack's produced" then the government is 100% efficient." You are arguing that "as long as there is just one talented, capable person growing up in North Korea, its government is doing a splendid job and deserves all its powers. So much so they would be granted to it voluntarily by the people, even if they hadn't outgunned them in the first place. "But you can't apply that perspective to the vast majority who have not made the climb." What's your point here relating to this discussion?