You have misunderstood. A free market demand for research is valid, taxing others to pay for (often pie-in-the-sky) government research is (generally) not. Government funded research has netted mankind very little for the cost, but at least we got nuclear weapons & Tang.
And the interstate system,
Yes, but it was a military defense project. The benefit of such infrastructure to the public was a dramatic bonus, I will admit.
space travel,
Would have happened anyway, eventually. The primary reason we went to the moon when we did was political.
water purification,
Ah, no. The need to purify drinking water was recongnized since the Broad Street Pump incident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreakThere were many projects to accomplish this, both public & private. Some worked but were expensive at scale, others simply were not effective. The very first case of
continuous clorine purification of municipal water was in Phillidephia, using a patented machine called "The Clorinator", invented by Charles Wallace, a chemical engineer who definately did not work for a government research facility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_chlorination#HistoryChlorine gas was first used on a continuing basis to disinfect the water supply at the Belmont filter plant, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania by using a machine invented by Charles Frederick Wallace[citation needed] who dubbed it the Chlorinator. It was manufactured by the Wallace & Tiernan company beginning in 1913.
the internet,
The internet is only related to Arpnet, not the same thing. The Internet that you use, and the only kind you have ever known, is entirely a privately designed & constructed network. Sorry.
the national weather service, and nuclear magnetic resonance machines.
The NWS is a service, not an invention or discovery of science. I can see it's value, just as I can see the value in the Forestry Service, or my local fire department. As for the MRI, that was invented by one, particularly brilliant professor of chemistry. Since he was employed by a publicly funded university, he was technically a government employee; so I'll grant you that one. Sometimes even the government gets lucky.
You're right. Government research is useless!
I never said government research is useless, I said it wasn't remotely as cost effective as private research. I'm not completely opposed to government funded scientific research, but I do think that there should be limits. Baying about an "impending" ecological crisis doesn't lead to rational limits. Also, such government funded research should also be limited to areas of inquiry with no plausible near-term market payback, such as theoretical physics or Keynesian economic theory.
Look, the market is not 100% efficient. Many businesses profit by socializing its real expenses.
Yeah, like employee healthcare. I bet you still think Obamacare was pushed through to
help working families.
Exxon Mobile's gasoline and diesel fuel is subsidized by every person suffering from asthma due to transportation emissions.
Which is more than reversed by the medical uses of the same petroleum that gasoline is refined from. Or the improvement in medical emergency survivability just from gasoline powered ambulatory services. I see your unintended consequences, and raise you some intended ones.
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/friedricha564181.html#SuwAEiAhQPcKdJtT.99
Their profits are subsidized by the public dealing with fewer fish, damaged buildings, and coral reef destruction from acid rain.
Acid rain is another topic for another day, in another thread. We are talking about climate change. Try and focus.
One of the most important tenets of government is to protect the public from "smart for one, dumb for all" activities.
I'm pretty sure governments have
never been founded on the principle of protecting the public from itself. I damn well know that the US government was not. Feel free to advocate for that constitutional amendment, but just because you can say it, does not make it so.
Are you at all worried about the government encroaching on your personal liberty/freedom? You may think the above mentioned things have been for the benefit of humanity but has an entity ever decided that somthing you do, and fully understand the risks of, is not in your best interest or in the interest of humanity?
Sugary drinks over 16oz come to mind.
Of course this is a gradient. I'm not advocating for government controlling every aspect of your life, just as (I assume) you're not advocating for 100% deregulation. Balance is paramount.
Who advocated for deregulation? I haven't. I just don't want
more regulation, I'd be happy with that.
No man is an island. A lot of behaviors (like drinking 16oz sodas) are actively harmful to society at large. Sometimes it is beneficial for government to interject.
It's always beneficial
for government to interject. That's why they do it, it's in their interests.