“Can someone tell me, exactly, how one makes out a personal check to the JWST program? Seriously, does no one here understand how govt.-funded programs work?”

Apparently, one cannot.

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPD&c=1210&s=1G

“Seriously, does no one here understand how govt.-funded programs work?”

Apparently not. Even you didn’t offer up why.

“It’s bad enough libertarians prefer their utopian fantasy to the real world,…”

Um, I’m Independent. Colorful stereotyping you’ve got going on in there.

“…but they compound the frustration of those who are forced to deal with them by insisting the real world could conform to their fantasy now but for the inaction of communistic leeches.”

Ah, the “commie leech” stereotype offends your sensibilities? Why… you can dish stereotypes but can’t take em?

“Is it OK to tell these people to piss off here?”

Why? No echo?

” I’m all for spirited debate,…”

Not.

“…but one cannot argue with those who refuse to acknowledge the world as it is, vs. as they insist it must be.”

You think you’ll do better arguing with a mirror? It’s safer, no doubt.

True elements of ‘strength’, no doubt.

Here I am.

Right here.

Where are you?

Adopting a strategy of avoidance.

“Must. Not. Prove. I’m. A. Total. Intellectual. Wimp. In Public. By. Accepting.
Your. Challenge.

I. By. My. Natural. Talents. By. Definition. Am. Less. Then. That.”

What a surprise.

It’s not easy to ignore deluded paranoiacs sometimes, but, to paraphrase another wise individual, always worth the effort.

Low Math: “I can comprehend Christian fundamentalists far better than the libertarian mind, so completely divorced from reality does it seem to me.”

Not my problem. You seem to be more comfortable with a previously decided, well-defined social structure for the attractive predictability you hope if would offer you.

I’m comfortable with unpredictability and serendipitous innovation.

You prefer committees.

I prefer teams.

You prefer the voice of top heavy authoritarianism.

I prefer everyone having a voice, or no voice if they prefer.

You comprehen0d authoritarian Fundamentalism.

I comprehend being personally fundamental.

You think that you know better than me what my money should be spent on.

I think you should spend your own money on whatever you think is best for you, like everyone else.

You think that the weight of Government should relieve me of my own money because you can’t be bothered with the effort to intellectually persuade me that your own personal priorities should also be mine.

I think that you think I’m just going to bend over for you just because your goon squad has brought flowers.

My apology for calling you a ‘twit’. It was a cruder form of disrespect than I usually engage in.

Or against bloggers/commenters on a magazine website…?

“Would you want to live in a world where different science teams had to go directly to the public to pitch their proposals?”

Libertarians wouldn’t even think of suggesting it.

You would go to the people who wanted it and who will benefit from it – i.e. scientists and universities. Universities in turn would raise money by offering their teaching and consultancy services, and the profits earned from selling or exploiting their past inventions. As the best at deciding what gives the best cost/benefit, they ought to be able to out-compete industry easily.

What libertarians are saying is that if the general public wanted a particular project to go ahead, they ought to be able to set up a fund and purchase it, like any other business entity. Nobody is saying that’s the only way it can or should happen.

“Seriously, do these people think funding agencies and their associated infrastructure sprang fully formed from the foreheads of a pack of Marxist infiltrators in the NSF or something?”

Seriously, no.

Seriously, do these people think funding agencies and their associated infrastructure sprang fully formed from the foreheads of a pack of Marxist infiltrators in the NSF or something? That it’s all just some giant conspiracy to shield elites from the inconvenience of market forces? Jesus Christ, the reason market forces are kept out is because they do an ATTROCIOUS job of deciding what is the best basic science research to conduct in terms of cost:benefit. Look at industry now. Shareholder pressure is crushing basic research in the private sector, and in some places has eliminated it completely. The example of Bell Labs is excellent. You figure it’s a shadow of its former self because of govt. anticompetitiveness? What actual evidence does anyone have to support that?

It’s maddening, these people. Maddening! I can comprehend Christian fundamentalists far better than the libertarian mind, so completely divorced from reality does it seem to me. What part of actual, real-world evidence of human behavior and economics is so offensive to these self-proclaimed defenders of true liberty? I’ll never understand it.

“make out a personal check to the program…”

Hey, I’ve got a brilliant idea. Let’s fund all government programs via voluntary donations earmarked for specific programs!

There is actually a reason we don’t do that, you know.

Yeah, I know.

No one, not even you, would do it voluntarily.

“We” must strong-arm everyone else to get the $$$ to fund our brilliant ideas (that we just can’t seem to come up with the necessary funds all by our Rocket Scientist-selves all on our own. Too many stupid people standing in ‘our’ way. Clueless, inept bastards! They must do for us what we, their superiors, cannot do for ourselves ).

Twit
Twit.