So it is your belief that without the US government the internet would not exist? Interesting. If Edison didn't invent the incandescent bulb does that mean we wouldn't have lighting? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning here. It's similar logic that they use in patent laws -- that if somebody did invent or discover something at some particular point in time that means it never would have been invented/discovered. I guess if Columbus didn't discover America everyone would still be living on the other side of the Atlantic... [/preschool logic]
This is a stupid argument.
Couple things wrong here. The electric light bulb, even in its early stages was a superior product from the alternative, the kerosene lamp. It didn't need to be refueled. It didn't give off smells or gases, it didn't require you to store dangerous fuel. Aside from the availability of electricity (which was expanding), it was a much better choice for consumers. The commercialization and profitability weren't going to be measured in decades, but a few years.
The internet, however, is something very, very different. I'd actually argue past Rathi and flat up state we would not have the internet without the US government. At least how have it now. The internet was designed primarily as a communications tool for military use. It was never intended to be a profit generator. The costs to build and maintain this system are immense. And it took decades to get the point where private industry actually stood up and said "hey, this is a good idea." While private industry has created their own intra-networks, they never would have promoted the largely open system we have now. And considering how much Russia, the Chinese and the Europeans love to control things via government, if they had backed it, they would have made it very restrictive compared to what we have now. We would have gotten SOMETHING, it just would be smaller, slower, less efficient and far more regulated then what we have now, and thus far less useful. Thus, back to my point that we would not have the internet without the US government.
And to build on Rathi's argument, central governments can provide benefits. For instance, the orphan drug program. There isn't a market for those drugs because the number of people who need it is simply too small to recoup costs. Yet central government provides research and money for it and thus we get drugs to ease or completely cure diseases. Furthermore, the Modern State of South Korea is essentially a central government set of 5 year plans. The economy of South Korea, which I last checked was either 11 or 17th largest is directly due to the steps that the central government under President (but really dictator) Park's administration took.
And if you need ANOTHER example, the entire road way system. When private companies and individuals set up road ways, they do so in small amounts and charge people plenty to use them. The impact upon the economy is immense. If every time you cross a half mile of road way and had to pay $8 like you do on the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge, shipping basically wouldn't have taken off and exports would languish or be built directly by the docks. Huge amounts of crops would never get planted, or food prices would be crazy high to recoup the transportation costs. The highway system in America (and frankly everywhere) exists because of government. Private industry (Rightfully) can never recoup the costs. Thus, they don't do it.
