[cloverich]

While true of Republicans, imo the quoted argument is equally dogmatic. Its not as though its used as a simple painting of Government as symbiotic; today's liberal arguments take it much further. Something like the following: "Government invented the internet. And without government, NO ONE would have invented the internet."

That, imo, is silly. PEOPLE invented the internet. There's time's and places where private investors are better at backing these people, and times when government forces are necessary. These blanket assertions that pumping money into either (without direction) will lead to improved innovation and economy are reductionist and, to a large extent, fundamentalist.

Its not simple. Investment is tough, and both sides get it wrong more often than right (that's the nature of business).

[spamizbad]

> today's liberal arguments take it much further. Something like the following: "Government invented the internet. And without government, NO ONE would have invented the internet."

The "free market" versions of the Internet were the walled-gardens of AOL, CompuServe, Prodigy, etc. I'm not sure if you've ever used them, but I did and let me tell you - they all sucked compared to the Internet, even in 1994-95.

[cloverich]

IMO, that's an equally weak argument. "The free market's internet 20 years ago was terrible. Therefore, all conceivable free market plans for the internet could would have been draconion and awful."

To be clear, I'm not arguing the Government funds did not play the biggest role - or even that it wasn't the best solution available. It doesn't matter if it was. Im only arguing that pointing to an example of something invented under government funded research is not justification for blanket, undirected increase in government funding. But that's how that argument is used.