• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Joe Biden: Great ideas of the last 200 years needed government

Did all the great ideas of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries need government?


  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
Yes, it does work because if it is a day or a year doesn't matter. You gotta recoup costs of R&D, and you will not before you are pushed out of the market.

I'm not arguing over IP, so this is it for me.
It's clear to anyone who has worked in any type of industry that, reverse engineering something and retooling a plant for production takes more than a day.
 
Well, I'm arguing IP and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I've been dishonest (or worse, wrong) regarding the time requirements for reverse engineering and retooling (for what presumably could be a computer program).

I made my point, yours is irrelevant, thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
bicycles were popular before roads. Horse Drawn Wagons were popular before roads. Why could it not be true for cars?

Well, for one thing, cars travel a lot faster than bicycles or horse drawn wagons. They tear up dirt roads a lot faster than bikes or horses, and they're a lot more difficult to control off-road. For another thing, some roads DID exist during the era of bicycles and horse-drawn wagons (just look at old paintings/photographs). They weren't paved, but they were still roads.

Automobiles could never have caught on to the extent that they did without some serious government involvement. Can you imagine trying to drive to the nearest city through random fields and forests without a road? Let alone trying to drive WITHIN a city, navigating randomly around buildings? That model doesn't work so well. Lots of African cities have tried it.
 
Well, I'm arguing IP and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I've been dishonest (or worse, wrong) regarding the time requirements for reverse engineering and retooling (for what presumably could be a computer program).

I made my point, yours is irrelevant, thanks for playing.

I'm just not in the mood to debate it.

It's long and drawn out, I've had a long and tiresome day.
Maybe tomorrow.
 
Well, for one thing, cars travel a lot faster than bicycles or horse drawn wagons. They tear up dirt roads a lot faster than bikes or horses, and they're a lot more difficult to control off-road. For another thing, some roads DID exist during the era of bicycles and horse-drawn wagons (just look at old paintings/photographs). They weren't paved, but they were still roads.

Automobiles could never have caught on to the extent that they did without some serious government involvement. Can you imagine trying to drive to the nearest city through random fields and forests without a road? Let alone trying to drive WITHIN a city, navigating randomly around buildings? That model doesn't work so well. Lots of African cities have tried it.

People did do these things though, way before the invention of cars there were roads, both formal and informal.
 
Nothing could have been invented were it not for the trees, rain and sun. Let's give all the credit to the pagan gods...

They've been so good to us!
Thank you, Sun, for all the great inventions you made possible.
Thank you, Moon, for music and smiles.



This is ridiculous. People don't exist without government but that doesn't mean government gets credit for everything.
 
Last edited:
Well, for one thing, cars travel a lot faster than bicycles or horse drawn wagons. They tear up dirt roads a lot faster than bikes or horses, and they're a lot more difficult to control off-road. For another thing, some roads DID exist during the era of bicycles and horse-drawn wagons (just look at old paintings/photographs). They weren't paved, but they were still roads.

Automobiles could never have caught on to the extent that they did without some serious government involvement. Can you imagine trying to drive to the nearest city through random fields and forests without a road? Let alone trying to drive WITHIN a city, navigating randomly around buildings? That model doesn't work so well. Lots of African cities have tried it.
The roads (or more likely, paths and tracks) would exist due to the use of wagons and horses - it wouldn't be "random fields and forests", unless you were way the hell off the "beaten path"...Which, come to think of it, is a saying that proves my point, to an extent.

And sure as hell, I bet wagons and horses navigated randomly around buildings...Why not cars?

Given enough horse and wagon traffic, I would bet some kind of traffic control arose...despite there being no cars.
 
Why so... absolute? No middle ground?

Of course, it takes a college guy to challenge the too often black or white view of our nation in general and even this board in particulary. Its nonetheless nive to find some intelligent life among us.
 
Last edited:
I think Joe meant to MEAN something a bit different than what he said. But he didnt say it that way. Now to answer the poll..... I picked other because Joe is correct and incorrect.
 
Going back to the 18th C takes us to the 1700's. Those 2 centuries are notable for at least 2 major advances or "Revolutions" in the Western World: Agricultural and Industrial

The Agricultural revolution in Europe came from *the need* for increased production of food-supplies (just one aspect of it). One major advancement was the idea and utilization of defined and fenced in properties (you know - the infamous hedgerows and stone walls of Europe) for growing crops and keeping animals penned.

This started with the landlords, farmers (some aspects of advancement came from merchants) more so than aristocracy or nobility. Government didn't get involved until they realized the benefit of this (for the food production - AND *more so* the benefit of increased wealth that came from organized farming enclosures).

And so this is found in almost EVERY area of advancement - individuals come up with the idea and expand it
GOVERNMENT always then takes it over and takes the claim *for* institutionalizing it.

In many areas, however, Government has proven to be the very thing *holding people back* from advancements - much to the detriment of many.

This brings up the other thread about 'The politically incorrect path to ending poverty' - or whatever it was called.
 
Last edited:
People did do these things though, way before the invention of cars there were roads, both formal and informal.

Yes but they've always been funded (or at least planned) by the government. Especially within cities.
 
Last edited:
The roads (or more likely, paths and tracks) would exist due to the use of wagons and horses - it wouldn't be "random fields and forests", unless you were way the hell off the "beaten path"...Which, come to think of it, is a saying that proves my point, to an extent.

And sure as hell, I bet wagons and horses navigated randomly around buildings...Why not cars?

Because that model of infrastructure is impractical, as any attempt to navigate a city in Sub-Saharan Africa shows.

The Mark said:
Given enough horse and wagon traffic, I would bet some kind of traffic control arose...despite there being no cars.

That traffic control would also have been the result of government intervention though.
 
Because that model of infrastructure is impractical, as any attempt to navigate a city in Sub-Saharan Africa shows.
With that comment and my next one, I was attempting to say that with enough of any traffic, be it motorized or not, would probably cause some type of traffic control/better road construction/placement to occur.

That traffic control would also have been the result of government intervention though.
Why?

Could not there be a privately funded traffic control system, in some area? What precludes any such occurrence?
 
Could not there be a privately funded traffic control system, in some area? What precludes any such occurrence?

What profit incentive exists for a private entity to plan and build roads? And how do you coordinate the efforts between multiple such entities?
 
Last edited:
Yes, it does work because if it is a day or a year doesn't matter (notice the biblical reference?). You must recoup costs of R&D, and you will not before you are pushed out of the market. Developing a new product or process would always be a loss without IP except when the biggest distributor innovates.
stiffled
Without IP, private innovation or invention ceases for all practical purpose. End of story.

Err no. Empirical research by James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer "Do patents perform like property?" (2008) suggests that patent law does not have any positive relationship on the rate of innovation.
 
That traffic control would also have been the result of government intervention though.

Traffic control is a result of more vehicles - yet dirt roads were used before paved or stone ones. As you see in this video, there was no traffic control and out of this 7 minutes I didn't see anyone run over or accidents occur.

 
Traffic control is a result of more vehicles

Yes. In other words, more vehicles (and a successful auto industry) would not be possible without traffic control.

Ockham said:
yet dirt roads were used before paved or stone ones.

They were still planned and maintained by government.

Ockham said:
As you see in this video, there was no traffic control and out of this 7 minutes I didn't see anyone run over or accidents occur.



There also weren't as many cars on the road then. And what makes you think there was no traffic control there? I see a road. I see at least some basic traffic laws generally being obeyed (e.g. drive on the right side).
 
Yes. In other words, more vehicles (and a successful auto industry) would not be possible without traffic control.

They were still planned and maintained by government.

There also weren't as many cars on the road then. And what makes you think there was no traffic control there? I see a road. I see at least some basic traffic laws generally being obeyed (e.g. drive on the right side).[/QUOTE]

Actually, traffic control is one of the worst ideas to ever come to roads. Take a look at this thread I made on this very subject. I think you'll find the videos and articles very enlightening.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-topic-discussion/80407-more-uncontrolled-intersections.html

40,000 people a year (pretty sure that's the number) die on government roads every year. That's not exactly indicative of a successful system.

http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

And as for companies profitting off of the maintaining and running of roads, see the Dulles Greenway and the English Turnpike system.
 
Yes. In other words, more vehicles (and a successful auto industry) would not be possible without traffic control.
You seem under a sort of delusion. Vehicls were already successful without government controlled roads or traffic control.

They were still planned and maintained by government.
They were initially animal trails or are you saying the government now controlled animals somehow too? However in 1893 there were government funds used to promote roads - not vehicles like the bicycle or wagon, under the Dept. of Agriculture. In the 1900's there were crys to get vehciles out of the mud to promote more roads but there was no promotion of the vehicles themselves. So you're partially right.

There also weren't as many cars on the road then. And what makes you think there was no traffic control there? I see a road. I see at least some basic traffic laws generally being obeyed (e.g. drive on the right side).
Laws were not generally implemented until the 1920's through the 1930's. Yes, "Rules of the Road" was written in 1903 but there was no enforcement nor adoption until much later.
 
In reference to the OP, I believe that we could argue that, consequently, every major screw-up that marked the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries also required/involved the intervention of government....at least to a great extent. :shrug:
 
Well, not every, but a significant amount. Even if it is something so simple as intellectual property protections.
 
I don't agree, even without IP people would still invent stuff because they would be first to the market and first to profit.
Not to mention that they would have more knowledge over the product to solve problems with it.

Correct, nevertheless, it is difficult to play with history here. I would still say it is an important contribution to the playing out of history.
 
Correct, nevertheless, it is difficult to play with history here. I would still say it is an important contribution to the playing out of history.

It's had a significant impact on history, but how people think it has, is another story.
It's been used for rent seeking, more than anything else.
 
Last edited:
“Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive,” he said. “In the middle of the Civil War you had a guy named Lincoln paying people $16,000 for every 40 miles of track they laid across the continental United States… No private enterprise would have done that for another 35 years.”

- Joe Biden, Manhattan Fund raising even 10/26/2010 - NY Daily News

Think about some of the things you use every day. Some of the biggest inventions that have changed the way we live over the past 200 years. Our health. Transportation. Communication. Did all of those great ideas need government vision and government incentive?


Now take the poll.

Pretty much all of them needed some vision and incentive from the government, yeah.

Any idea that couldn't be executed in an anarchical society requires help from the government, directly or indirectly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom