1/22    Money for Mars mission, yay or nay?
        \_ Should the Spanish have spent tons of the government/
           kingdom's money to set voyage to explore uncharted waters and
           lands (America)?
           \_ the Spanish could reasonably have expected that uncharted lands
              had riches for them to exploit.  We already know Mars is a
              barren rock.
              \_ Bullshit.  We don't even know if it has water on it or not.
                 We know more about the fungus between your toes.
                 \_ like saying we don't know if the mojave has water or not
                    \_ Uh?  What?  We know all about the mojave, we know
                       almost nothing about Mars.  What are you talking about?
              \_ But it might have OIL!!
           \_ That's a complicated question.  The Spanish had huge problems
              with their overseas holdings, went bankrupt a few times due
              to the inflation caused by all the gold they plundered, etc.
              Even leaving morals aside, conquering stuff isn't always the
              best thing to do for a country. -- ilyas
              \_ No problem, just don't have a 'mars rock' based economy.
                 As of this date it doesn't appear there will be any natives
                 to exploit so there's no morals issue.
                 \_ Sure there is.  Whenever public money's used for something,
                    you need to make a moral case for it.  Also, it's not
                    really about the gold.  Expanding the country is just like
                    expanding the economy, it has to be done 'organically' or
                    you get counterproductive results, like inflation or
                    revolts or whatever.  In the case of Mars I don't even
                    see a non-scientific reason to go.  Personally, I think
                    there are better ways to explore space than NASA (and
                    better ways to spend government money than NASA).
                      -- ilyas
                    \_ You don't need a morals case to spend public money.  You
                       need a "public good" or "national good" case to spend
                       public money.  Or you should, anyway.  You don't see a
                       non-scientific reason to go?  Neith do I.  I think the
                       scientific reasons alone are reason enough.  I agree
                       that NASA may not be the right place to spend the money,
                       but we should continue the/a space program.  Putting
                       everyone on the dole is not in the public's best
                       interests and certainly immoral.  See the Indian
                       Reservations for how that works out (or not).
                       \_ "Public good" is a (utilitarian) moral argument.  A
                          lot of people, btw, will disagree with this sort of
                          argument for spending public money, either because
                          they themselves are not utilitarian, or because they
                          think 'the public' cannot have a good.  As for
                          "we should" go to Mars, I might as well say
                          "we shouldn't" with equal force.  "We should" is not
                          an argument. -- ilyas
                          \_ The argument 'for' is the advancement of science,
                             the possibility of getting access to new materials
                             or energy sources, and the value that tech can
                             bring to everyone to increase quality of life
                             for the entire human race.  I see the argument
                             'against' as "let's just keep wasting limited
                             resources doing the same thing over and over until
                             we can't do it anymore and we all starve and run
                             out of energy.  Feel free to present your own
                             version of the 'against' argument.
                          \_ There is nothing utilitarian or moral about
                             the term "public good" in economics.  The term
                             refers to items for which it is generally not
                             possible to restrict the benefits only to the
                             payer.  Some examples are national defense,
                             preventing disease epidemics, and emergency
                             services (police, fire, ambulance, etc.).  Since
                             market mechanisms are not efficient for
                             allocating resources to such goods, there is
                             a good economic argument for paying for these
                             with "public money" such as taxes. -!op
                        \_ the life of a few is worth sacraficing for the
                           the life of many. or something like that.
                           \_ which has what to do with the way welfare has
                              utterly destoyed what was left of the Indians?
                       \_ Military intervention, landgrabbing by the US govt.,
                          discriminatory business practices, and outright
                          fraud and theft legitimized by a racist judiciary
                          is responsible for the devastation of the Indigenous
                          Americans and their ghettoization on the
                          Reservations.  Welfare has raised some people out
                          of the borderline starvation they were in.  Don't
                          blame the victims, George Armstrong.
                          \_ You're in the wrong century.  Once on the
                             reservations and being completely "taken care of"
                             by the government, those on the reservations were
                             essentially destroyed as a viable people.  Entire
                             generations were lost to Indian "welfare".  And
                             really, stop with the "Indigenous" crap.  If you
                             ever met one, you'd know they prefer "Indian" all
                             alone without the PC shit confusing things, if
                             you don't know their exact tribal affiliation.
                             \_ How do you think they got on the Reservations?
                                What do you think the conditions were like
                                before welfare for the tribes? They had to
                                rely on handouts from missionaries. Welfare,
                                while certainly not perfect, gave some people
                                on the Res. space to concentrate on more than
                                where the next meal was coming from.  Next,
                                I know self-described Indians, Native
                                Americans, Amerindians, and Indigenous
                                Americans. That I choose to use the last one
                                is my choice. I wasn't blasting your choice of
                                language, so stop being such a sensitive
                                prick.
                                \_ Before welfare?  Missionaries?  You think
                                   missionaries supported millions of
                                   Indians at some point?  I blasted your
                                   word choice because it's PC garbage.  The
                                   welfare reservation handout system has
                                   destroyed the tribes.  It was the last
                                   step required to genocide them as a people.
                                   \_ The nail was already in the coffin.
                                      Welfare is not perfect, but it did
                                      prevent starvation.  Much better, of
                                      course, is the gaming money and the
                                      recognition of sovereignty on the
                                      tribal lands.  And as for being PC,
                                      fuck you, hater, and your honkey-ass
                                      cracker vocabulary.
                          \_ I think he was blaming welfare, not the Indians.
           \_ money will be spent on scientists and on manufacturers (most
              likely in the U.S. soil), hence will create jobs and must be
              good. Bush is brilliant. Go Bush!
              \_ I'm sure you'd prefer to believe that the money is more
                 likely to create jobs if spent on welfare.
                 \_ A chicken in every pot, an ethernet cable in every
                    butthole.
                    \_ An excellent plan.  Free net for every whore will
                       create jobs, so long as the whores become a public
                       resource.
                        \_ But yermom is already a pubic resource.
                           \_ She doesn't charge so she isn't a whore but you
                              do have to line up behind tom for your shots
                              after you get syph or some other 'easily cured'
                              STD.  You ok with that?