Technological advancement due to government?

Economics Economics Questions
1

I recently saw a video of Noam Chomsky criticizing anarcho-capitalism. His basic argument was:

  1. Government has been responsible for (and has borne the cost) of almost all of the major technological achievements over the past century.

  2. Corporate “tyrannies” were able to use these technological achievements to reap all the profits.

I’ve heard other varieties of this claim from others.

First of all, is the claim correct? If so, how is it that a government, which is nothing more than a corporation with a monopoly on tyranny, could have produced advancements that competitive corporate tyrannies didn’t (and presumably wouldn’t have)?

2

Right wingers say the same thing about NASA.

Exactly what technological achievements did he mention?

I’m not so dumb as to pretend that the government hasn’t been able to achieve anything, I mean, they did put a man on the moon. However, I could cure AIDS within 10 years if given the property authority.

3

Let me add an addition in bold for you:

Government has been responsible for (and has borne the cost) of almost all of the major technological achievements that have caused mass death over the past century.

4

I can’t find the original video now. The only example I remember is DARPA. I think he might have given one other example.

5

The government did x, therefore you need government to do x.

Also, counting the “number” of advancements is a little silly, considering that the government funds a lot of stupid projects.

6

The early SF film, Destination Moon (loosely based on Heinlein’s Rocket Ship Galileo) is kind of interesting in one way: Its about a PRIVATLY financied and run expedition to the moon. In fact, toward the begining of the film, the main protagonist, who gathers a group of other industrials, even points this out.

From the wikipedia article: The film features the premise that US private industry will finance and manufacture the first spacecraft to reach the moon, given the Soviet threat at the time, and then the US government will bring itself to buy or lease the technology. Visionary industrialists are shown cooperating to support the venture.

7

OP: Government has been responsible for (and has borne the cost)

I’m sorry - WHO exactly was it that bor the costs??? me, you and the next hundred generations of sheep…

and yes there were technologies created by the gov.. at what cost to the rest of the economy? what else would have been created if those trillions and all those brains had not been drained?? and who was it that brought the technology to market and transformed it for the use ans enjoyment of people??

Chomsky proves that no matter how smart you are politics do in fact cloud all reason..

8

I get the lost opportunity cost argument.

Still, his argument seems convincing because you can see the internet (like the bridge or stadium), but you can’t see the lost opportunities.

I would like to be able to say that his claim (almost all) is just plain wrong anyway, but am not sure if anyone has written on that subject.

9

http://inventors.about.com/od/timelines/a/twentieth_2.htm

Hmmm . . .

He should have said:

“The entrepreneur” instead of “government”

“Governments” instead of “corporate tyrannies”

“citizens’ lives, liberties, and property” instead of “the profits”

And by the way, the government spends one-fourth of the U.S. GDP. They’re bound to walk ass-backwards into something good.

10

I strongly recommend that you read The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. It explains that while the government can indeed fund a lot of cool scientific projects, the vast majority of technologies that reap economic benefits–make people better off rather than function to kill them or make physicists really happy–have been discovered through private enterprise, as well as why..