slug.com slug.com

6 10

People like Bernie Sanders are holding humanity back from the stars-
[redstate.com]

Ben Shapiro responded to a tweet put out by Bernie Sanders that I think really nails this. On Monday, Sanders was displeased that billionaire Richard Branson developed a space plane that he proceeded to use to fly in space. It was a move that brought us one step closer to civilian space travel, but instead of this being marked as a celebratory moment of humanity inching closer to the stars, Sanders saw it as another perversion of capitalism, and that if Branson has money to fly in space, he has the money to give to the government so it can then give it to people.

Shapiro called him out on his socialistic viewpoint, noting that Sanders is completely avoiding the uprising happening in Cuba at this moment, and maybe to not slam capitalism from the safety of one of his expensive homes.

SpikeTalon 9 July 13
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Unfortunately WE … the PRODUCERS … the “Conservatives”of the World have Provided For, Enabled, Willingly Supported the NON Producers of the World.
By Our OWN “Good Deeds” and “Humanitarian Efforts” We UNDO ALL Our Work. OUR Work, Sweat and Efforts have CREATED the “Bernies” of the World.
OUR Charity is the Nail We Have Driven Through OUR OWN FOOT.

WHO IS … John Galt?

Bernie is a “Skimmer” … a “Scammer” … He points to the Fruits of a PRODUCER and Tries to make NON-Producers “Feel” Displeased … Unhappy … that THEY haven’t achieved such a situation by Pretending that there is NO Value Difference between PRODUCTION and NON PRODUCTION.

OBAMA’S line of HorseShit … “You Didn’t Make That” … is Typical of the Bernies, AOCs, the BLM Bimbos (Ize a trained Marxist) of the world.

The only Justification for Existence for “Socialists” such as Bernie is the wresting the Fruit of SOMEBODY Else’s Labor Away from Them and “Redistribute” it to the Non Productive Members of the Proletariat … AFTER Making Sure He Gets His “Cut” of those “Takings”.

Except that Bernie (and his ilk) Takes a Cut DIRECTLY from the Proletariat REGARDLESS of whether he “Provides” them with ANYTHING.

2

If Branson wants to spend HIS money playing around with rockets and such well then - that's his business. Who is Bernie Sanders or anyone else to tell Branson how he should spend his own money.
Having said that (with conviction I will note) I also will add that the space programs - the ideas of "flying to the Moon, Mars...out there" seems a tremendous waste of resources. NONE of the planets in our solar system offer any benefit - NOTHING even equal too the resources spent to travel there much less to establish some kind of habital structure there.
There is but 1 - ONE habital planet in our solar system and we're living on it. All other planets are of extremely hostile environments.

So what are you going to do once you "fly to Mars - or Venus..." places where even the slightest thing that can go wrong will prove fatal to whoever is stupid enough to put himself in that environment in the first place.
But hey - it's their neck - their money - right? So go ahead and Godspeed to them. Except I for one do resent the billions - or is it trillions of public monies spent on someones silly fantasies about zooming about the galaxy like Starbuck.

For better AND for worse we (mere earthlings) have already made use of near earth space - orbiting satellites do everything from relay communications, monitor weather patterns and other geological events and patterns - AND they spy on us. So as I said - "for better AND for worse"...

The fact is that there are limits to how fast and how far our little machines can go. Not to mention the unknowns regarding extended time in a zero gravity environments effects on the humans who would occupy those relatively slow moving spacecraft. 7 months is the time it would take to "fly to mars". 7 months and each minute of that trip is frought with peril for the human occupants of that spacecraft.

So, what is there on Mars that makes the trip worthy of the human life and the monies required to make it happen? NOTHING. I am reminded of the pat answer to the question of why climb Everest...answer..."because it's there". Might be a good enough answer for the mountaineer who aspires for the notoriety of it all but NOT good enough reason for the justification of wasting (that's right I say wasting) of trillions of dollars and the cavalier tossing away the lives of the humans foolish enough to take that ride to Mars.

As I said in the beginning of this little essay - If Mr Branson wants to spend his own money on rocketeering himself into orbit - well then...who is anybody to stand in his way. Just don't ask me to approve of the use of public treasure - tax monies - money stolen by gov't from the productive private sector to help him.

Well, I agree … somewhat.

I don’t agree with your idea that Space is of little to no value as tgere are Tremendous Resources out there.
You sound a bit like Europeans of the 1500s who Couldn’t Imagine WHAT Value the “New World” could POSSIBLY provide to them (despite the obvious Gold flowing into the Spanish Coffers,

I find it odd that you point to the Value Received from “near earth” space while stating, essentially, that “That’s all there is”.
Clearly, one of those statements must be in error.
It seems that you believe that the inexorable advances in Science and Technology will not provide answers to the problems that we have not, as yet, answered … or even met.
Just a Minor Point … probably 90% of the Technology You use today was Directly or Indirectly CREATED … Discovered … due to the “Space Race” of the 50s - 60s - 70s.
Space is a “resource” we’ve barely even touched and you’ve decided already that it is of little to no value?

What I Agree with you is …

As to “Approving” the use of “Public Treasure” … STOLEN Monies … for ANY Use … Why should you “Approve”? Its STOLEN and in the “Real World” there are laws against ANY “Use” of STOLEN Property.

In a “Real World” scenario, a Person should ONLY receive that which THEY Personally Earn.
However, this is not a “Real World” … this is a World where PRODUCERS are Forced or Coerced into GIVING … Supporting … those who Do Not … who WILL NOT “PRODUCE”.

1

They are both right.
They are both wrong.

Pro-Branson: people get to use their money the way they see fit. Space exploration has yielded many benefits in the past and opening it up to commercial/public use can only lead to more benefits.

Pro-Bernie: I don't remember who said it, alan watts or buckmeister fuller, that the world has enough resources to feed and clothe the entire world but we choose not to do it. Now he is in government and has spent his whole life trying to feed and clothe the world though government and failing. Now he sees those same failures in the public sector. Hence he is right to point out that a person that has more money than they know what to do with would choose to spend it on nobody instead of somebody.

Anti-Branson: It's clear that he is a man that is more concerned with making a name for himself in history than any over-arching global benefit. As such, billions of dollars solving a non-problem could be better spent solving a problem such as desalination, more efficient energy, etc. There is also the angle that he has so much money because in the US, and I suspect the UK, his companies are given so many tax breaks and incentives that they don't put their "fair share" into the common pot and use that money as they see fit instead.

Anti-Bernie: There is a reason why governments, that have more money than branson, haven't done what he want's branson to do. Those reasons may be valid or not but if governments aren't doing it, don't expect private citizens to take up the slack. In effect, "lead by example" and have your government, your party, your religion, etc fund that which you want Branson to fund and see if he follows suit.


With that in mind, my view:

I stand by Branson's decision to spend his money the way he seems fit. It will not feed the hungry directly but it could lead to technologies or a mindset that will. Taking politicians and private citizens up into space changes their perspective: you don't see borders and you see the fragility of earth. In his own way, he IS addressing those things that Bernie wants him to address but not by spending money on the issue but by spending money giving humanity a new perspective that may ultimetely allow others to address the issue. As I said above, MONEY is not the issue when it comes to feeding the world. Plenty of gov'ts and plenty of people and plenty of corporations have enough MONEY to do it. What they DON"T have is perspective and that, IMO, is what Branson et. al. stand to give us. The US gov't had a chance to do this decades ago but instead choose to focus on the military and "posturing" applications of space travel: "look at the USA world! We can go to space and you can't!". Branson is not bound by those conventions. As I see it he is saying: "Everyone can go to space eventually!"

In fact, I bet that framed this way, that Branson (and others) seek to "equalize" space travel so that it's not only the purvey of a few highly trained gov't astronauts, to give EVERYONE the opportunity to gain this persective, that Branson et. al. is working to make it so that nations don't matter and people embrace a global instead of nationalistic or individualisitc perspective... framed this way I bet Bernie would be all on board for that.

"Space exploration has yielded many benefits"

please list those benefits for us and then weigh that against the trillions of public sector (stolen tax monies) dollars used

@iThink

  1. From 1960-1973, at the height of the space race, the inflation adjusted total money spent on space exploration was about 200B representing roughly 0.8% of the national GDP. After that, it was at 0.2% dropping to 0.1% GDP currently with a budget in 2021 of $21B
    As such, I don't see how you are getting trillions (plural) as money spent on space exploration. MAYBE $1T over the entire span of the space program... but never trillions (plural).

  2. The "space economy" was estimated at about $180 billion in 2005, according to a report by the Space Foundation released in 2006. More than 60 percent of space-related economic activity came from commercial goods and services.

  3. Current industries tied to space include:
    Velcro is an $2B industry.
    Tang is a $1B industry.
    Weather forecasting is a $1.5B industry.
    GPS is a $66B industry.
    Global satellite communication is a $56B industry.

  4. And this is just the tangible, capitalistic benefit. It is difficult to quantify the effects of pure research including projects like the Hubble Telescope or the science being done on the ISS.


You be the judge if this makes it worth it or not for yourself, of course.
But as a scientist, the science alone makes it worth it.

"Current industries tied to space include:
Velcro is an $2B industry.
Tang is a $1B industry.
Weather forecasting is a $1.5B industry.
GPS is a $66B industry.
Global satellite communication is a $56B industry."

In reference to GPS and communications I refer to the part of my comment where I say "for better AND for worse".
As for velcro and tang - those innovations might well have come along without the space program.

As for any otherwise potential treasure that may lie unexploited on planets other than Earth - the cost benefit of attaining them seems prohibitive to me.
I too love the images gained from Hubble telescope - but I fail to see any practical utility in them...sort of like fine art - lovely to behold but I don't think I would spend trillions or millions for them. I know it is incongruous to compare practical utility of space exploration with the benefits of fine art but I do believe you get the larger point.

At present in the optimal time and conditions our spacecraft takes 7 months travel time from Earth to Mars. Unless someone comes up with a propulsion system that defies the known principles and laws of physics that isn't going to change.
Then of course there is talk of exploration of the outer planets and beyond...some folks just don't comprehend the mathematical value of the terminology "light-year".
I know your do understand that principle. So I won't waste time trying to explain it to you.

I never said nor do I believe that the space program has not brought fruit...I am questioning the cost benefit of it though.

4

[Socialists] sport a belief system that, while sometimes well-intentioned, is so evil and unsustainable that it’s a testament to our corrupted media and education system that the idea has grown to the proportions that it has.

I’m more and more convinced of this every day.

1

I would have thought that you would take issue with public private partnerships like this.

2

Let's do a math exercise--how many times richer than Bernie Sanders is Richard Branson? And how many times richer is Bernie Sanders than the average retired professional?

Not the point. Point is Sanders is a wealthy man who owns at least one luxury home (probably owns more than one property) all thanks to a free market society. The main reason he supports socialist policies is so he could fatten his own coffers, just like the other politicians do, socialism for the rich.

@SpikeTalon That is the point. He has a typical amount of wealth for a retired professional. In fact, his multiple of the average person's wealth is even in the single digits. Richard Branson's multiple of his wealth is in the quadruple digits. That's an incredible gulf of wealth. This space nonsense is just about Branson taking more political power away from us. That's holding back all of our creative potential.

@WilyRickWiles That's still considerable wealth being he's only a politician. Are politicians really worth that kind of money, especially knowing how they claim to want to help the poor working class? Branson didn't earn his wealth via taxpayer dollars, and I have more respect for someone like him who started out on the bottom than I do for politicians who make empty promises to the citizens they are supposed to serve.

I smell the strong stench of communism here.

WRW … Once again you come espousing HorseShit …
Try your question this way …

  • How much MORE has Richard Branson CREATED than Bernie Sanders?
  • How much MORE has the Average Retired Professional CREATED than Bernie Sanders?
  • How or WHAT has Bernie CREATED or PROVIDED in his Life? (Hint: NOTHING)

Bernie has managed solely to be a “Pied Piper” to a Segment of the Largely Non Productive aspect of Society by Promising Them “Free Stuff” and “Social and Financial Equality” through the Use and Taking of the Fruits of OTHER Peoples’ Labors. Meanwhile, like Every Other Con-Man in Existence he got THOSE Schmucks to Give HIM Their Money …

Bernie … Has Become … IS … the Typical Socialist/Communist “Upper Echelon” Politburo Type and simply climbed on the backs of the “Common Man” boosting HIMSELF to a place “Social and Financial” Well Being and … DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for His “Supporters”.

Somehow WRW it figures that YOU would be completely FINE and in Agreement with that kind of Crap.

@Bay0Wulf Bernie is a pied-piper of losers. He amassed his millions off a book sale -- a creative endeavor not allowed in a commie society. He also readily inspired mass shooters. Typical commie overlord.

@bobbo666
Well, yes … and also his “Electioneering” … money put up by his non-producing followers intended to lift him to Higher Office so he could ensure “redistribution” of Other Peoples’ Wealth and Labor.
When it became obvious he wasn’t going to win, he simply pocketed all those “donations” and … bought a lake house in New Hampshire … and “Padded His Pocket”.

@bobbo666, @SpikeTalon
When Bernie “dropped out” of his “race” for Political Office (which you might recall, he did … TWICE) … without actually TRYING Very Hard … without actually spending hardly ANY of it on his “campaign” … he simply pocketed ALL the “Donations” that were “Given” him by his followers.

I’d call it THEFT (Stealing from his followers) except They were Stupid enough to Follow Him, Support Him … GIVE Money to him … TWICE.

Wow, I must have struck a nerve.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:245490
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.