7 ms·

I'd add that whilst people generally have a low trust in governments, I personally have zero trust in corporations and the idea of access to space being solely

by altacc 4y ago

I'd add that whilst people generally have a low trust in governments, I personally have zero trust in corporations and the idea of access to space being solely the preserve of commercial entities is an uncomfortable one. Historically both governments and companies have acted for self interest and detrimentally to everyone else but governments still have more accountability than corporations, which are beholden to a profit seeking board. Governments do things that are not profitable but advance society, for profit entities don't.

robertlagrant 4y ago
> Governments do things that are not profitable but advance society, for profit entities don't. The simplest way to understand if society wants something is if it will pay for it. > the idea of access to space being solely the preserve of commercial entities is an uncomfortable one It shouldn't be. Until SpaceX, the only way to the ISS was a Russian-controlled system. Would you prefer that to SpaceX today? Or is it better to have companies - that are regulated - follow money rather than the whims of whomever is currently in charge?
- gbear605 4y ago
  > The simplest way to understand if society wants something is if it will pay for it. That’s society’s preferences weighted by how good each person is at making money, but it doesn’t represent society as a whole. If a person is disabled or uneducated and can’t hold a job, that person should still get an equal say in society’s preferences even though they have no money with which to express their preferences.
  - ogre_magi 4y ago
    >that person should still get an equal say in society’s preferences why?
    - 13of40 4y ago
      I know it's an archaic sentiment, but something about everyone being created equal...
      - jkeddo 4y ago
        Is it really equality to perfectly equalize decision-making while completely slanting the resulting the burden-taking? I realize how dangerous/potentially harmful a "taxpayer contribution === influence" is. But I think it doesn't have to be a binary. Perhaps a "three house" style system would be an improvement for representative democracy here: One house for representatives of each state One house for representatives of vote by population One house for representatives of taxpayers by net tax burden carried
        avmich 4y ago
        I think that was tried before and found not working.
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > One house for representatives of taxpayers by net tax burden carried Thats called aristocracy.
        rswail 4y ago
        Given that a large number of those "states" are net tax beneficiaries, that first house needs to be reformed. As for having reps of taxpayers by net tax burden, what the hell does "net tax burden" mean? Tesla is useless without roads. Boeing is useless without airports. How do we apportion the tax paid against benefits received? It's nonsense that "taxpayers" are worthy of further representation than any other citizen. The fact that corporations pay tax should not give them rights to representation in the legislature. Unless you think of corporations as one way to "represent taxpayers by net tax burden" because they are a collection of taxpayers.
    - MontagFTB 4y ago
      Because they are people at risk of being marginalized or abused. It doesn’t mean their preferences become law, but they should have a voice.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    > should still get an equal say in society’s preferences even though they have no money with which to express their preferences They don't get that through the government. A mostly binary choice comprising of what two sides promise to do on a thousand issues? How is that anything close to the perfect accessible system you're positing?
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > The simplest way to understand if society wants something is if it will pay for it. Through market approach? This has never worked for roads, fire service, police, courts, sewage, water supply or any other natural monopoly. Victorian Britain actually had a court system where you would pay the judge to judge you, and the more you paid, the 'better' the judging. You fan imagine the issues...
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Not everything works the simplest way. But you'll note that all of those subcontract lots of companies to do their building, cleaning, maintenance, decorating, HR, IT, etc etc. The things it doesn't work for are very easily defined, and don't interfere with the fact that almost everything does work well like that.
b112 4y ago
the idea of access to space being solely the preserve of commercial entities is an uncomfortable one. To be fair, everything else has been like this. The first railways were government funded, the first airlines (in most places), this is quite typical. Then as things mature, as there can be a profit-motive, government tends to get out of the lime-light, and private orgs take over. Space-X, as an example, is just that. And space travel is about to become mundane, common, normal. Just like air travel in the early 50s. And this doesn't mean the government has zero power here. It can take over companies in time of war/national emergency, it can compel for national need. Again, what we need to do... is realise that space travel is becoming like air travel. And I for one, would be horrified if all control to air travel was through governments only.
- hobs 4y ago
  There's no way that's happening. Air travel is one of the safest modes of mechanized transportation in the world, space launches would be among the least and probably wont change much in their overall reliability.
  - b112 4y ago
    wont change much in their overall reliability. This is a very, very strange assertion. Airflight was incredibly dangerous 100 years ago. Yet now you claim it is one of the safest, thereby validating that technological improvements, and design improvements, can change safety. Then you say, effectively "things won't improve" for "this other tech over here". Which is it?! My point in all of this is, while space travel was a monumental achievement 60+ years ago, it's simply not that big of a deal now. Endless commercial corporations now engage in the act, for profit, because there is profit, and because it is so commonplace. And this trend will only increase, eventually leading to people actually being station in space (eg, the moon, larger commercial structures, mining, etc). This will lead to more trips, and for people visiting said structures for business, and on and on. Just as with planes, this will become safer, more common, more regulated, more... normal. What part of this iterative process do you believe will block launches from being more safe? NOTE: don't use today's technology as a blocker, please.
- 4y ago
TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
Governments hire corporations. Czech, mate.

by altacc 4y ago

robertlagrant 4y ago

> Governments do things that are not profitable but advance society, for profit entities don't. The simplest way to understand if society wants something is if it will pay for it. > the idea of access to space being solely the preserve of commercial entities is an uncomfortable one It shouldn't be. Until SpaceX, the only way to the ISS was a Russian-controlled system. Would you prefer that to SpaceX today? Or is it better to have companies - that are regulated - follow money rather than the whims of whomever is currently in charge?

gbear605 4y ago
> The simplest way to understand if society wants something is if it will pay for it. That’s society’s preferences weighted by how good each person is at making money, but it doesn’t represent society as a whole. If a person is disabled or uneducated and can’t hold a job, that person should still get an equal say in society’s preferences even though they have no money with which to express their preferences.
- ogre_magi 4y ago
  >that person should still get an equal say in society’s preferences why?
  - 13of40 4y ago
    I know it's an archaic sentiment, but something about everyone being created equal...
    - jkeddo 4y ago
      Is it really equality to perfectly equalize decision-making while completely slanting the resulting the burden-taking? I realize how dangerous/potentially harmful a "taxpayer contribution === influence" is. But I think it doesn't have to be a binary. Perhaps a "three house" style system would be an improvement for representative democracy here: One house for representatives of each state One house for representatives of vote by population One house for representatives of taxpayers by net tax burden carried
      - avmich 4y ago
        I think that was tried before and found not working.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > One house for representatives of taxpayers by net tax burden carried Thats called aristocracy.
      - rswail 4y ago
        Given that a large number of those "states" are net tax beneficiaries, that first house needs to be reformed. As for having reps of taxpayers by net tax burden, what the hell does "net tax burden" mean? Tesla is useless without roads. Boeing is useless without airports. How do we apportion the tax paid against benefits received? It's nonsense that "taxpayers" are worthy of further representation than any other citizen. The fact that corporations pay tax should not give them rights to representation in the legislature. Unless you think of corporations as one way to "represent taxpayers by net tax burden" because they are a collection of taxpayers.
  - MontagFTB 4y ago
    Because they are people at risk of being marginalized or abused. It doesn’t mean their preferences become law, but they should have a voice.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > should still get an equal say in society’s preferences even though they have no money with which to express their preferences They don't get that through the government. A mostly binary choice comprising of what two sides promise to do on a thousand issues? How is that anything close to the perfect accessible system you're positing?
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> The simplest way to understand if society wants something is if it will pay for it. Through market approach? This has never worked for roads, fire service, police, courts, sewage, water supply or any other natural monopoly. Victorian Britain actually had a court system where you would pay the judge to judge you, and the more you paid, the 'better' the judging. You fan imagine the issues...
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Not everything works the simplest way. But you'll note that all of those subcontract lots of companies to do their building, cleaning, maintenance, decorating, HR, IT, etc etc. The things it doesn't work for are very easily defined, and don't interfere with the fact that almost everything does work well like that.

b112 4y ago

the idea of access to space being solely the preserve of commercial entities is an uncomfortable one. To be fair, everything else has been like this. The first railways were government funded, the first airlines (in most places), this is quite typical. Then as things mature, as there can be a profit-motive, government tends to get out of the lime-light, and private orgs take over. Space-X, as an example, is just that. And space travel is about to become mundane, common, normal. Just like air travel in the early 50s. And this doesn't mean the government has zero power here. It can take over companies in time of war/national emergency, it can compel for national need. Again, what we need to do... is realise that space travel is becoming like air travel. And I for one, would be horrified if all control to air travel was through governments only.

hobs 4y ago
There's no way that's happening. Air travel is one of the safest modes of mechanized transportation in the world, space launches would be among the least and probably wont change much in their overall reliability.
- b112 4y ago
  wont change much in their overall reliability. This is a very, very strange assertion. Airflight was incredibly dangerous 100 years ago. Yet now you claim it is one of the safest, thereby validating that technological improvements, and design improvements, can change safety. Then you say, effectively "things won't improve" for "this other tech over here". Which is it?! My point in all of this is, while space travel was a monumental achievement 60+ years ago, it's simply not that big of a deal now. Endless commercial corporations now engage in the act, for profit, because there is profit, and because it is so commonplace. And this trend will only increase, eventually leading to people actually being station in space (eg, the moon, larger commercial structures, mining, etc). This will lead to more trips, and for people visiting said structures for business, and on and on. Just as with planes, this will become safer, more common, more regulated, more... normal. What part of this iterative process do you believe will block launches from being more safe? NOTE: don't use today's technology as a blocker, please.
4y ago

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago

Governments hire corporations. Czech, mate.