This is an interesting article, but one sided. Not to say there isn't a point to be made, but likely not a point liberals, and thus most here want to acknowledge.
First, this is statistically one sided. You have 6 specific inventions, and a 7th broad brush 'government did it' answer. How many millions of inventions have been made and yet you claim that all of them were government funded? No. That's ludicrous on it's face. In fact, how many patents are filed every year? Nearly a million per year since 1985. In 2005 alone, nearly 1,750,000 patents were filed. Yet here, you cite 6 examples and say all the rest are due to government? Or do you assume none of the others are "best"?
Second, a free-market "for profit" economy is what allows inventions to be mass produced and successful. Regardless of what reason an invention is created, unless you can successfully build and sell it (thus making profit), it's useless. For example, Göbel may have invented the first light bulb, but was he able to produce it and sell it? No. So what good did it do? Thomas Edison, on the other hand mass produced it, there by allowing the general public to enjoy the product. That is only possible in a free market economy.
Third, this contains yet another liberal/socialist false theory. It's that idea that: government did fund it, therefore it would not exist if government didn't fund it. This is where liberals tend to invent statements I didn't say and credit me with their imaginative quotes.
I am NOT saying that everything government has done would have occurred without government. Obviously no company would be as stupid as our government to fund the space station. But at the same time, it simply isn't true that everything government has funded, would not happen if they didn't.
For example: My company makes high amp, high efficiency power systems used in commercial trucks (and RVs and some large SUVs). We are currently selling it to some international customers as well. Before we created it, we planned to develop this invention no matter what. However, our management found out we qualified for a government grant. So of course we applied for it, and got it. The company saved thousands, the executive board got huge bonuses, and we are now selling the product for a good profit. Would we have created our product without government grants? Absolutely. The point Libm was making, was, if government is handing out money, then people will take it even if they could do without it. The inventions would still be made either way.
Fourth, and this is what most liberals will hate to hear. Yes government does deserve credit for some inventions. But through the military. The military is what has driven most of the examples of success in government funded research. The internet, despite what Albore says, was actually a military project. ARPANET was a project under the DOD, for the purpose of being able to connect all their military installations. GPS, also was build by the DOD, and the project officially called "NAVSTAR GPS" is even to this day, maintained by the United States Air Force 50th Space Wing. Of course, Nuclear research was a DOD thing.
===
To get to my main problem with this, if someone started a thread on corporate welfare, I wager most of the liberal fools in this thread would be all over it, squealing and complaining about the evil corporations and such. Yet, where do most government grants go? To corporations like the company I work for. In the 90s, under captain underpants, GM was given a huge grant to research batteries. GM doesn't make batteries, never did, never will. They make cars. Why did GM apply for the grant? Because they could, and because government was dumb enough to give it. What happened to the research? What little was learned, was sold. How neat, GM spent nothing on the project, got a tax payer hand out, and then sold off everything learned. And we wonder why GM execs get paid the big buck? That's financially brilliant.
Yet even the research the government does do, most is military research that you squeal about constantly. We're spending too much on military, we're in debt, we don't need all this! Then you turn around and cite products of the military budget as proof of successful government research we should continue?
But what really drives me nuts is... if someone brings up the debt, how many liberals start whining hysterically about how we should not be over spending! Yet here you are talking about how great their spending is! WAKE UP! You can't have it both ways! "We need research grants to learn the mating habits of the Japanese Swallow" (actually happened), then turn around and "Bush is horrible! He's over spending!"... idiots??
I would not even have a real issue with some research funding... if we were not 9 TRILLION IN DEBT! But apparently most people have not grown up. Most are still little children complaining when government does do something, and complaining when they don't. "you are spending too much!" "you are not funding research!" Maturity would fix many problems in America.
The system never required federal involvement if it weren't for the defense angle, groups of states frequently collaborate on common issues. And going to the moon never required government involvement - all the construction for going to the moon was by private companies.
