Oh, John Carmack, no

Are you kidding? He still makes fantastic tech demos. Like that last one with the, uhh, stuff…that did…things.

So, does anyone want to comment on the irony of Carmack dissing “wasteful” gov’t spending even as he profits from it for something as “useless” as space travel? Anyone, anyone?

To be fair to Uncle Sam, I don’t want any wealthy idiot to be allowed to fill a giant metal silo full of rocket fuel and try to shoot it into the stratosphere just because they feel like doing it until they can pretty conclusively prove it isn’t going to fall on, like, an orphanage full of sick kitties, either.

I’m curious why you keep saying he is short-sighted and out for his own self-interest, JoshV. He says he wrote this because he sees unsustainable trends in modern government, doesn’t want to leave the world worse for his two sons, and believes (in a utilitarian way) the majority of people would be better off with a less ambitious government.

Did you fail to read the whole article, or are you merely saying he is mistaken (or manipulative) and in fact his worldview is less sustainable in the long-term than our current path?

I said not allowed. Not allowed is not the same as allowed but having to go through a regulatory framework to cover issues like what you mentioned (which is the purview of the FAA). There is a difference.

He’s short sighted in that he believes that because something is inefficient its better to not do it all, and to think that people shouldn’t need to be forced to do good deeds by paying their taxes, when they so obviously do, as idiots will not pay their fire service fee, and then cry foul when their house burns down.

But he doesn’t offer any specific examples of what he’s talking about. He just trots out the usual generic right-wing talking points about wasteful gov’t spending, lazy or unnecessary civil servants who can’t be fired, over-taxation, over-regulation, etc. He doesn’t even bother listing which gov’t services he thinks are worthwhile and which should be curtailed or gotten rid of.

Now, since it’s presumably just a blog post where he’s stating his opinion, it’s not like I hold it to a particularly lofty standard. But if he intends it to be some sort of call to political arms, well, it’s far too underdeveloped to do that, IMHO.

Except, of course, he doesn’t go to the extreme of saying government is completely unnecessary, or that all government spending is useless. If it’s ironic, it’s because one could use it to make the counter argument that NASA taking advantage of a millionaire’s exploration into a particular avenue of engine design to get some low cost R&D done is actually a point against a charge of government wasting money.

Although then you turn around and see how much money NASA “wastes” because the decisions are dictated by the desire for pork to flow to key congressional districts.

srsly

He can go to Sudan, Pakistan, Somalia or a multitude of other countries where there are vast regions without governmental oversight. Sure in his rocketeering ventures he might slam into federal walls, but that doesn’t take away the value of the collective helping itself in various domains. I am sure if I set out to make a home made Nuke, I would probably run into some problems aswell…

But he does seem to argue briefly that the current model is flawed because of the partisan design of the system, and I tend to agree. Cycling between two groups that are so different philosophically different can’t be productive in the long term. Sure we have gotten a lot of things done in the past, but how can the political class bicker on the matter which economic models should the country adopt? Can’t we all take a time out, agree on something that would work, and go with it? I mean, what is at stake here? Western civilization?

He’s careful to use general terms like ‘trends.’ Not that he has anything to fear in the way of retaliation or resistance, like he might if he were, say, attempting to run a new avionics package thru the FAA’s gauntlet. But he might?

That’s neither here nor there. I commented because I think it’s amusing how quickly we seek to quell a contrary voice, and fail to do so in terms they’d appreciate or even understand.

No, I get all that. I was specifically confused about the term short-sighted. Since it’s generally acknowledged by all sides that the federal government has been kicking the can for decades, it was weird that someone assumed a short time perspective from an article that openly states he is worried about the future.

Now I realize JoshV is just talking about how Carmack has the wrong worldview, and that short-sighted was the wrong term to use.

Wrong term I guess? Or I guess I should say its definitely short-sighted to vote for the candidate who screams “Less Gubberment!” the loudest.

(I never called it self-interest though)

Yeah I was thinking about it some more, and it sort of works if you split it in two. He has the vision to see there is a problem, but can’t see the negative unintended consequences you believe would happen.

He’s wrong to worry about his kids though. If he instills in them his future perspective, they’ll be far ahead of everyone else when it comes to safety, security, and success. It’s funny how parents start freaking out about “the world their kids will live in” instead of calmly showing them how to deal with it.

Heh. I left a word out in the original post. It should read what they THINK is in their own best interests.

You’d think that someone who’d worked with John Romero would understand that inefficiency is rampant in the private sector as well.

Well, there are still plenty of people who would agree that Romero made them his bitches. So Diakatana, at least, succeeded in its goals.

Wow. It just amazes me reading the smug, self-centered replies to Carmack’s post. “I could beat him in an argument!” “He didn’t give specific examples of how government is wasteful!” “People only vote in their own self-interest!”

  • You couldn’t beat him in an argument. You can barely even form coherent sentences for a forum.
  • One does not need to give ‘specific examples’ of government waste, because government is inherently wasteful. Dismissing that point is like dismissing the completely factual statement ‘junk foods will make you fat’ because nobody gave you ‘specific examples’.
  • Of course people ‘vote for their self interests’. What people who snidely point that out don’t realize is that EVERYONE does this … including ‘social workers’ who rely on the bloated system to pay their salaries, and the lazy, entitled morons who suck at the teat of the system and thus vote for ever-expanding welfare programs, and the >50% of people who don’t pay taxes … and on and on. Voting for a more ‘progressive’ government is just as rooted in self-interest as voting for American government (you know, like in that musty old document, the Consti-something). The only difference is that American government as it was intended is actually sustainable and reasonable.

Replies such as the ones seen here are laughable, because you dying-breed lefties are like the flat-Earthers. Someone is trying to point out to you the obvious truth: the world is an oblate spheroid. And you’re just waving your hands and plugging your ears and insisting that your ignorance is truth, that we can keep growing the government and taxing people and paying for wasteful programs (specific examples: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, federal control of schools, etc) and watching the country get deeper and deeper in debt; that the government can keep trying big social reforms only to make society worse; that government can run health care better than private industry; and other proven falsehoods that you’re too stubborn and full of yourselves to admit you were wrong about.

Carmack is a smart guy. Lucky for him, that intelligence goes beyond just making games and rockets. He can apply logic and reason - the things lefties always sneer and strut about while ignoring them every time they undermine a lefty position. You just don’t like where logic and reason lead. Tough. Grow up. Give up the childish socialist and communist fantasies. The government is not your savior. Embrace the independence your forefathers fought and died for.

Reported.

Reported by a Canuckistani who enjoys his government-run healthcare system.

I wasn’t being snide at all. And I just said most people. I didn’t say most right-wing people. You brought the persecution complex. It wasn’t there in the original statement. Yes, people on welfare will tend to vote for candidates that favor welfare. I don’t think anyone here is denying that, so I’m not sure where you got the impression that we would.

“Pay or die healthcare”? You should work for the Obama administration. I’m sure, however, that as a dedicated socialist you donate your time to your ‘employer’ and ask for no money in return.

Socialized medicine provides less in return for more money than your ‘pay or die healthcare’. The truth - with which your type are only loosely affiliated - is that no health care system covers everyone. Any country that has socialized medicine will confirm this: they use ‘death panels’ and ‘wait lists’ to decide who is worthy of the limited resources available. And because these systems are run by governments, which are naturally inefficient, they have all the problems associated with government enterprises: poorly-educated and unmotivated employees resulting in bad care and unsanitary conditions (such as the staggering number of infections contracted by patients in British health care); slow service; too many people trying to get that service at once (hence beds stored in hallways in British and Canadian health systems, or patients dumped or refused treatment). But even worse, once the government takes over responsibility for your health, they have to start telling you what to do so they don’t have to take care of you. Thus you get “'elf & safety” services, like in Britain, which regulate such tiny things as moving office chairs (doing so requires a special worker, lest the average worker harm themselves and require some of the limited available medical attention). You get the government regulating your diet (such as current plans in the US to federally regulate salt intake, and soda intake, or the cities that have begun refusing to allow certain restaurants to operate in certain areas).

I realize it’s ‘progressive’ and ‘enlightened’ for you to snipe at our health system - which, incidentally, is the best in the world, even with all its flaws - but if you’re going to propose an alternative, shouldn’t you propose one that is BETTER, not one that is PROVABLY WORSE? But of course that’s impossible, since the free market provides the best health care possible, to the most people possible … which points up your real issues. You don’t want better health care. You just have an ideological aversion to the free market.

And the best thing about that is: all the problems with our health care system can be attributed to government’s involvement in it! Before we started creating government-run medical systems like Medicare, our health care was running fine. It was cheap and readily available. But as the government got more and more involved it got more expensive and harder to obtain - because that’s what happens to every service that is separated from the feedbacks of the market.

Now we have the ultimate stupidity of FORCING EVERYONE TO BUY INSURANCE. Brilliant! It’s insurance that’s the whole problem - people using insurance to pay for regular health maintenance (or using the ER for the same thing, because their insurance allows them). But since the insurance industry wrote Obamacare (and gave massive funds to the Democrats and Republicans who supported it), we don’t hear about that. We hear what a tragedy it is that some Americans chose not to buy insurance, and that became the problem government had to ‘solve’.

You have the utter gall to strut around like you’re some intelligent person, when you utter such nonsense?

Sure. If you’re one of the lucky few who can get it:

cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp=EM8705

And all you have to do is pay a gigantic federal tax, then 15% combined sales tax. What a bargain!

The efficiency and technical wonders of your health care system probably explain why all your richer people - including your PMs - come here for care:

voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/02/canadian_premier_has_heart_sur.html

I lived in Canada for five years. I had the ‘pleasure’ of visiting one of your ‘free’ doctors, who jabbed my arm six times trying to find the vein to take a blood sample. Once I had to see a dermatologist - I had to make the appointment 4 months in advance. And these weren’t critical issues.

You like ‘free’ stuff? Everyone does. Doesn’t make it right, or even sustainable.

And, for the record, the majority of Americans like their health care too. I’m sure if you asked one of the people dying while they wait on a list for an operation in Canada they’ll give the same “I’m dissatisfied” answer as a person who can’t afford the operation in America. The difference: in America the person could get a loan, or get charity, and still get the operation … because the market would provide the service if he could pay. In Canada, he’s dead. Government control offers no alternatives.