|
The basic research was used to identify SSRIs as drugs to develop. Read more carefully.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
Phyzzle posted:"at what point did the preliminary stages of drug development leave the realm of basic research? After SSRIs but before now? No, of course not. They never left." It is in there still, though? Like, there's some nerd fiddling in some university lab with some small cells wondering what happens if you add poo poo to them and no one really cares for now. He is not doing it to develop some new drug, just to write his articles on "what happens if you add bird poo poo to brain cells". The discovery that, I dunno, bird poo poo cures alzheimers is then picked up by pharmaceutical companies as they attempt to make bird-poo poo-pills. They would never have started doing it if not for the nerd in the lab doing basic research. What they do afterwards is not basic research, but the bird-poo poo-in-brain-cells grad student's work is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:"at what point did the preliminary stages of drug development leave the realm of basic research? After SSRIs but before now? No, of course not. They never left." Perhaps you should meditate on the meaning of "preliminary", and how it applies in that sentence. Also a whole lot of our current psych meds are only marginally better than older ones, in some cases worse, and the ways they get their results are poorly understood. Want to take a guess as to how to solve those problems? And how exactly do you expect to develop new drugs for anything without understanding what you're trying to deal with?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:The basic research was used to identify SSRIs as drugs to develop. Read more carefully. The development of SSRIs is not, and cannot be, basic research. It can be inspired by basic research (Identifying neurotransmitters, etc.), but that does not make it the same thing as basic research. You can of course say the development of SSRIs was inspired by basic research, but that's not meaningful. All research was so inspired. eNeMeE posted:And how exactly do you expect to develop new drugs for anything without understanding what you're trying to deal with? And how exactly do you make use of any understanding without the development of any drugs or other products? But wait, you don't want to eliminate applied research, not even to dedicate all of these resources to pure research. Because that would be dedicating too much to basic research.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:The development of SSRIs is not, and cannot be, basic research. It can be inspired by basic research (Identifying neurotransmitters, etc.), but that does not make it the same thing as basic research. The basic research was used to create SSRIs. To requote what you responded to: quote:SSRIs couldn't have been developed without a detailed understanding of serotonin reuptake, could they? And yet before SSRIs someone studying serotonin reuptake was just some nerd in a lab fiddling with pointless cellular minutia. The "preliminary stages" of psych drug development never left the realm of basic research because basic research is still the initial stage in the process of developing new types of drugs. For example, research into the TAAR receptors I mentioned a few posts ago- research into new types of receptors is the first phase of developing new drugs that target those receptors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:If developing a new product is "in the realm" of basic research, then literally everything is in the realm of basic research, and it's not a very meaningful distinction. Let me familiarize you with how rational drug design works, very briefly. A publicly funded researcher doing basic research, not necessarily intending to "develop a product" in any meaningful way at all, usually does the preliminary work, which you could call "target discovery and elucidation". Essentially, this guy is investigating some receptor and documenting what it does. Let me reiterate: he likely has no ties to a pharma company at all. Well, over time he discovers that this receptor might be a good target for Alzheimer's research and says so in a paper. Another guy works at, say, GSK and is trying to develop a cure for Alzheimer's. He sees basic researcher's new paper on this receptor and is excited by it, so he starts thinking about how to design a small molecule to activate the receptor. This is where basic research ends and applied science begins. The goal is no longer to find out about something but to design something that will mimic an already described process. There are a lot of steps after this, all in the "applied" realm, so there is a lot more "applied" science going on here than "basic" science, but the basic research was still absolutely required for the GSK employee to initially think about targeting the receptor. By the way scientists themselves do not draw this basic vs. applied science line nearly so brightly as you and LogisticEarth seem to want to do, unless you count the relatively sharp divide between academia and industry as equivalent. It is inherently ridiculous, also, to talk about eliminating applied research unless the state has complete control over the economy - most applied research is done by private entities in response to basic research discoveries. Theoretically if literally all humans were doing basic research and nobody ever bothered to put their discovery to use then yeah, it would be too much basic research; but that is, well, silly! Somebody is going to read those papers and use those ideas in an actual society even if there are no public funds put toward this use, if they are potentially profitable enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:But wait, you don't want to eliminate applied research, not even to dedicate all of these resources to pure research. Because that would be dedicating too much to basic research.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:By the way scientists themselves do not draw this basic vs. applied science line nearly so brightly as you and LogisticEarth seem to want to do, unless you count the relatively sharp divide between academia and industry as equivalent. I don't know about the other sciences, but physicists do tend to draw a pretty sharp line between the two. Sometimes people even create talks addressing the need for more basic research (at the larger conferences, such as APS). But maybe it's a chicken and the egg problem, since most basic research funding is designated as such. Even the DOD defines basic research separately from applied science.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:It is inherently ridiculous, also, to talk about eliminating applied research unless the state has complete control over the economy - most applied research is done by private entities in response to basic research discoveries. Theoretically if literally all humans were doing basic research and nobody ever bothered to put their discovery to use then yeah, it would be too much basic research; but that is, well, silly! Yes, and it would also be somewhat silly to invest so heavily in basic research that practical research is stifled, falling below whatever the optimal balance might be. (The stifling could happen with enough of a tax burden, or by taking up too many qualified engineers, etc..) LogisticEarth suggested that some sort of full privatization scheme would take care of the balance. While I don't agree, I do agree that over-investment in pure research has happened, and I agree that the LHC is probably an example, along with any talk of a manned mission to Mars. In fact, I'd add the Moon landing as another example. The sheer number of man-hours lost by not waiting for modern simulation tools and numerical lathes can't be recovered now. quote:e: I was curious, so I googled "applications LHC research." It turns out there are a lot of them! To put it in perspective, the 13 billion used to discover the Higgs boson could have taken 100 newborns, raised them up, put them through grad school for Ph.D.s in electrical engineering, and given them million dollar grants to work on whatever the Hell they wanted every year for the rest of their careers. You'd think a few useful computer chips might have come out of that, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Yes, and it would also be somewhat silly to invest so heavily in basic research that practical research is stifled, falling below whatever the optimal balance might be. (The stifling could happen with enough of a tax burden, or by taking up too many qualified engineers, etc..) Then we are talking about a really fantastical society here, you know? The amount of money that would have to be put into basic research to stifle applied science would be many times greater than humanity's current investment. There are many more people with Ph.Ds than there are positions for them to fill at the moment - that suggests to me that both the state and private industry could greatly increase their investment in all kinds of science without really stepping on each others' toes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:To put it in perspective, the Phyzzle posted:Yes, and it would also be somewhat silly to invest so heavily in basic research that practical research is stifled, falling below whatever the optimal balance might be. Feynman Lectures posted:The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.” But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations—to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labor in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:To put it in perspective, the 13 billion used to discover the Higgs boson could have taken 100 newborns, raised them up, put them through grad school for Ph.D.s in electrical engineering, and given them million dollar grants to work on whatever the Hell they wanted every year for the rest of their careers. You'd think a few useful computer chips might have come out of that, too. Civilization 5 is not an accurate model of scientific progress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:To put it in perspective, the 13 billion used to discover the Higgs boson could have taken 100 newborns, raised them up, put them through grad school for Ph.D.s in electrical engineering, and given them million dollar grants to work on whatever the Hell they wanted every year for the rest of their careers. You'd think a few useful computer chips might have come out of that, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:That's not a thing. I'm afraid finite resources are very much a thing. Like when making a science specialist takes away that one hammer of production you were getting from the plains plot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:I'm afraid finite resources are very much a thing. And what we're saying is that you are patently unqualified to comment on their distribution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:I'm afraid finite resources are very much a thing.  Nice one, you got me
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Libertarians, like other fundamentalists, misunderstand science? I am shocked, shocked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:Civilization 5 is not an accurate model of scientific progress. Well at least raw population times modifiers from education buildings is better then the civ 4 "spend 60-90% of your gdp on research" model.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Yes, and it would also be somewhat silly to invest so heavily in basic research that practical research is stifled, falling below whatever the optimal balance might be. (The stifling could happen with enough of a tax burden, or by taking up too many qualified engineers, etc..) Why not just invest additional funds in practical research, then? Basic research and applied research are both major contributors to our economic future. Basic research efforts are seriously underfunded, but no one is suggesting that we need to rob funds from applied research grants in order to shore up basic research. But the fact of the matter is that we're not anywhere close to being over-invested in basic research, and you have no reason to believe that we are over-invested quote:In fact, I'd add the Moon landing as another example. The sheer number of man-hours lost by not waiting for modern simulation tools and numerical lathes can't be recovered now. The advancements made along those lines helped to open countless applied research opportunities that helped the US maintain its global superiority in science and technology. The moon landing is a good example of why basic research is so necessary, and it's also a good example of the public's misconceptions about basic research. The act of landing on the moon is itself meaningless, but the countless science and engineering developments that took place as a side effect of the moon landing program are immeasurably valuable in the grand scheme of things. quote:To put it in perspective, the 13 billion used to discover the Higgs boson could have taken 100 newborns, raised them up, put them through grad school for Ph.D.s in electrical engineering, and given them million dollar grants to work on whatever the Hell they wanted every year for the rest of their careers. You'd think a few useful computer chips might have come out of that, too. What do you think happens when something like the LHC is built? That money funded thousands of PhD students that went on to create businesses, work in research labs, etc. Development of the LHC resulted in countless advances in cryogenics, advanced materials, and data processing that will be paying off for years to come. At its core it is a basic research projects, but the advances made there have done way more for the progress of science and engineering than funding 100 EE PhDs from birth ever could (ignoring the absurd idea that you could predict which newborns would even be interested in pursuing that route in the first place, and the idea that "whatever they want" is never going to include basic research, since that's what you're worried about being over-invested in). Phyzzle posted:I'm afraid finite resources are very much a thing. Your claim that basic research funding is stifling applied research is absolutely false regardless of whether or not finite resources is a thing. It's not even a possibility, given that advancements in basic research require significant developments in applied research, so you can't really do one without the other. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Sep 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Hey, it's like the nature. Extreme profit right now. The issues will surely fix themselves over time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Hey, it's like the nature. Extreme profit right now. QuarkJets posted:Why not just invest additional funds in practical research, then? Basic research and applied research are both major contributors to our economic future. Basic research efforts are seriously underfunded, but no one is suggesting that we need to rob funds from applied research grants in order to shore up basic research. spoon0042 posted:Libertarians, like other fundamentalists, misunderstand science? I am shocked, shocked. Guys, Phyzzle posted:Like when making a science specialist takes away that one hammer of production you were getting from the plains plot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Have some new Koch stuff, not the brothers but their underlings: http://ladylibertine.net/2014/09/02/threats/ “Collectivism: Exploring Its Nature and Consequences” Dr. Victor Davis posted:There’s a problem certainly (inaudible) Obama. And then we’ve added a third element (inaudible), and that is to make the argument that the one percent (inaudible) politically democratic — that’s demographically not true. It’s a white male Christian belief that (inaudible) unfairly, and they are at war with people of color, gays, and young women. It doesn’t matter that the Nation is very wealthy or young women (inaudible) very wealthy, or that minorities are very wealthy. He’s made that argument and he’s symbolically taken his own persona, Barack Hussein Obama, and said that I represent you. The fact that he likes to go to Martha’s Vineyard, or his wife likes to go to (inaudible), that doesn’t matter because this group of people believe (inaudible). And that’s very hard to (inaudible) all at once. Edit: Basically he argues for framing the democrats as the party of the exclusionary 1% http://ladylibertine.net/2014/09/02/features/ “The Free Society: Five Key Features and Benefits” Dr. Will Ruger posted:"Now another key (inaudible) of a free society is that it allows for people to realize true virtue, and true virtue is about choice. Sure, in a world without freedom, we could be prevented from (inaudible). But then any chance of actually doing it would be gone as well since real choice is a prerequisite of true virtue. (Inaudible) our common bonds without free will (inaudible). As conservative writer, Frank Meyer, said about men, “Unless men are free to be vicious, they cannot be virtuous.” No community can make them virtuous. The person is the one with the virtue. Unless (inaudible) he cannot be (inaudible). Most interesting part to me: "The Free society" is "worth fighting for and a society worth dying for" Liberty (The Free society) there is being treated as what determines being or not being (in other words what is worth living and dying for) in that statement by Dr. Ruger. He's explicitly treating "The Free society" as his object of Ultimate Concern, it's a statement of faith.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:And the reason none of these things are happening right now in sufficient quantity is somehow related to all the filthy statism in the air. Universities, research trusts, and not-for-profit institutions already do exist in more than sufficient quantities. Goddamned huge quantities. What are you trying to say?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Have some new Koch stuff, not the brothers but their underlings: Somehow I picture you as having a tiny, but meticulously maintained Koch Altar in the corner of your room.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
More of a slob actually. What started out as a convenient way to figure this libertarian business out has turned into that I never want to hear "If you had done something about this I would not have to".
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Ronald_Raygun posted:Universities, research trusts, and not-for-profit institutions already do exist in more than sufficient quantities. Goddamned huge quantities. What are you trying to say? What he's trying to say is that there's a strange absence of 100% private-funded research organizations. These organizations all lean very heavily on state funding. If the libertarian viewpoint is correct, that basic research will continue in the absence of public funding due to the economic benefits, then why aren't there more private groups funding these efforts and reaping the rewards for themselves?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Libertarians, from jrodefeld on down, sure spend a lot of time accusing others of having poor reading comprehension. However, as a counterpoint to their own accusations, they themselves have become libertarians. So how good can their reading comprehension be? This is only mysterious if you don't consider "Free Markets" to be an all-problem-solving magic charm. If you persist in pointing out obvious consequences of their ideas, Libertarians assume that you can't read because they said "Free Market" so any problems you mention after that must be your failure to notice it. Hence: "Wanting to repeal the Civil Rights Act isn't enabling racism because racism can't exist in a free market, why is your reading comprehension so poor?" "Why do you think I'm anti-science just because I want to abolish all research funding? I said the free market will take care of it, can't you read?" "DROs aren't the mafia because a mafia would get ostracized in a free market." etc, etc. Ronald_Raygun posted:Universities, research trusts, and not-for-profit institutions already do exist in more than sufficient quantities. Goddamned huge quantities. What are you trying to say? Oh is this the part we completely forget about facts and imagine university research budgets don't critically depend on NSF grants? Okay. Hay guyz, we don't need welfare for the poor, look how easy a time the poor have getting food stamps on the Free Market! Since the market has provided so well, we can just eliminate useless SNAP expenditures! 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Sep 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh is this the part we completely forget about facts and imagine university research budgets don't critically depend on NSF grants? Okay. It's pretty evident that you're itching to make this argument but please, at least try and quote a semi-relevant post next time. Did you even read the context my post was made in? The user I was quoting said that the number of universities was insufficient, when in fact it's quite the opposite. Policies that try to "boost" the number of educational institutions result in unaccredited tripe like Full Sail and ITT Tech mushrooming all over the nation, not to mention the degree inflation that arises as a result, devaluing the degrees of existing institutions. "More education" isn't a panacea for every social issue - especially not when excess investment in public universities can trigger an economic butterfly effect (a la the Keynesian multiplier) that, among other things, can increase the risk of inflation and gently caress up the current account-exchange rate complex. I didn't mention a goddamn thing about the poor, or food stamps, so you're projecting your argument at the wrong guy, bud - I'm not even a libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Ronald_Raygun posted:Did you even read the context my post was made in? The user I was quoting said that the number of universities was insufficient, when in fact it's quite the opposite. No, the user you were quoting said that the number of completely privately-funded basic research institutions is insufficient, which is true, since even private companies that do basic research tend to do so from public grants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 01:22
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Ronald_Raygun posted:It's pretty evident that you're itching to make this argument but please, at least try and quote a semi-relevant post next time. Did you even read the context my post was made in? The user I was quoting said that the number of universities was insufficient, when in fact it's quite the opposite. He was talking about the amount of basic scientific research done with private funding, and you submitted universities: who depend on public funding for their research, so maybe you're just confused about what is being discussed here. Ronald_Raygun posted:"More education" isn't a panacea for every social issue - especially not when excess investment in public universities can trigger an economic butterfly effect (a la the Keynesian multiplier) that, among other things, can increase the risk of inflation and gently caress up the current account-exchange rate complex. I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Obviously education isn't a panacea because there's no such thing as a panacea...so what? You know what else isn't a panacea? Everything we do. But I'm excited to hear your explanation for why the public school system is bad for the economy. Ronald_Raygun posted:I didn't mention a goddamn thing about the poor, or food stamps, so you're projecting your argument at the wrong guy, bud - I'm not even a libertarian. I was making fun of you because you were engaging in the adorable libertarian tendency to use something that is only made possible by government as an example of the "free market" providing. Saying "universities prove that the free market will fund basic research" is exactly as dumb as saying "the internet proves the free market will build infrastructure" or "food stamps prove the free market will end hunger in America".
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Ronald_Raygun posted:It's pretty evident that you're itching to make this argument but please, at least try and quote a semi-relevant post next time. Did you even read the context my post was made in? The user I was quoting said that the number of universities was insufficient, when in fact it's quite the opposite. Policies that try to "boost" the number of educational institutions result in unaccredited tripe like Full Sail and ITT Tech mushrooming all over the nation, not to mention the degree inflation that arises as a result, devaluing the degrees of existing institutions. "More education" isn't a panacea for every social issue - especially not when excess investment in public universities can trigger an economic butterfly effect (a la the Keynesian multiplier) that, among other things, can increase the risk of inflation and gently caress up the current account-exchange rate complex. I didn't mention a goddamn thing about the poor, or food stamps, so you're projecting your argument at the wrong guy, bud - I'm not even a libertarian. The context was about private funding of research, and the lack of private universities that only use private research funds for basic research. You didn't read any further back than the post that you quoted, otherwise you would have realized that. In either case, even the most private of research groups rely heavily on state funding for basic research projects. Applied research can get away without as much state funding because it's actually possible to estimate an ROI on that kind of work. In case you doubt me, here's the sequence of posts: CharlestheHammer posted:
Logistics Earth posted:Universities, research trusts, and other not-for-profit institutions can exist without a strong state. GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:And the reason none of these things are happening right now in sufficient quantity is somehow related to all the filthy statism in the air. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Back to the argument about businesses being shortsighted, I'd like to point to the housing crisis as a prime example. Banking executives received huge bonuses for making loans while housing prices were still rising, and this spurred them to want to make as many loans as possible. Lacking regulation to stop them from making horrible decisions, these guys started making so-called "liar's loans", where they'd sell a mortgage to anyone with a pulse without bothering to check their income. Even in a healthy economy, these kinds of loans are pretty awful products; they can produce a slim profit margin so long as home prices continue rising, but if prices stagnate or heaven forbid crash then everyone gets hosed. Banking executives making these loans surely saw the writing on the wall, that housing prices would eventually stop rising, but that didn't stop them from making a decade of poor decisions for immediate financial gratification. Despite these decisions being inherently bad for the long-term health of the businesses that they represent, these decisions were good for the individual executives in the short-term. It turns out that not everyone involved in a business is necessarily interested in the success of that business, but is rather just there for immediate financial gain. This is also why privately funded basic research is so rare in private industry. Basic research can product knowledge and products with unpredictable value, but it often requires a lot of capital up front before anything interesting happens. Business people are not interested in spending a lot of cash unless it's likely to provide a solid short-term return (short-term as in "within a few years"), but with basic research there's never going to be a short-term return, and the long-term return is impossible to predict.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Back to the argument about businesses being shortsighted, I'd like to point to the housing crisis as a prime example. Banking executives received huge bonuses for making loans while housing prices were still rising, and this spurred them to want to make as many loans as possible. Lacking regulation to stop them from making horrible decisions, these guys started making so-called "liar's loans", where they'd sell a mortgage to anyone with a pulse without bothering to check their income. Even in a healthy economy, these kinds of loans are pretty awful products; they can produce a slim profit margin so long as home prices continue rising, but if prices stagnate or heaven forbid crash then everyone gets hosed. Banking executives making these loans surely saw the writing on the wall, that housing prices would eventually stop rising, but that didn't stop them from making a decade of poor decisions for immediate financial gratification. Hahahahaha! You actually think that having a pulse was a requirement for liar's loans. The good folks at Countrywide gave out a number of loans that I'd call NINAP (No income No assets or pulse) because if you end up getting a $3000 commission who cares if someone gets hosed further up the food chain. It is important to remember that there was actually regulation in many, many places that these banks were breaking, as well as standard customs practices. These banks routinely moved titles or falsified loan documentation, mortgage brokers provided services that would tie your credit score to that of someone who had a good one so as to artificially inflate yours to bypass the usual checks that they had to do. At the end of the day it is no different than the Free Rider issue with healthcare or unions. If we assume that people are infinitely rational individuals (Mind you they aren't) then they are going to gently caress over other people at the expense of the group wherever they can get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Long time lurker, first time poster, but this article gave me so many warm, fuzzy feelings I had to share. A group of freedom loving, free market people who wished to "live freedom before they died" were enticed by the prospect of purchasing land in Chile to create a community for like-minded objectivist elites because it's impossible to live the Libertarian free market dream in regulation riddled, statist, Federal Reserve strapped United States. The name of the community was Galt's Gulch Chile. The following article is written by well-known "feminist" Liberatarian Wendy McElroy. http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/8/26/the-fate-of-galts-gulch-chile.html quote:Many have wondered about the status of Galt's Gulch Chile (GGC), the libertarian community that was planned and sold in lots as a liberty oasis for those who wished to live freedom before they died. My husband and I purchased an option on 1.25 acres in July 2013. Others bought 10- or 25-acre lots and some invested in the agricultural side of the venture; extremely savvy investors committed small fortunes. GGC has been an unexpectedly wild ride since then. Zoning permits, water rights, environmentally protected area. Weren't they buying this land to get away from all those rules and regulations. Goddamn moochers have infested Chile too! Is there no free land left on Earth? They also have a facebook page to grouse about being swindled out of thousands of dollars in phony land scams.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Long time lurker, first time poster, but this article gave me so many warm, fuzzy feelings I had to share. I guess Pinochet just didn't have enough time to truly free the markets. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Long time lurker, first time poster, but this article gave me so many warm, fuzzy feelings I had to share. If only it were possible to form a legal body capable of holding people accountable for fraud. Oh well!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:If only it were possible to form a legal body capable of holding people accountable for fraud. Oh well! Clearly they should have started by purchasing a DRO/paying off a local mob before doing anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:If only it were possible to form a legal body capable of holding people accountable for fraud. Oh well! That sounds like government coercion to me, friend!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Badera posted:I guess Pinochet just didn't have enough time to truly free the markets. God knows he tried. My schadenfreude levels were dialed to 11 because these people are literally trusting children who believe so much in their ideals they never see the scam coming, and then the shocked disbelief that the one who scammed them wasn't a true believer is beyond their understanding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:If only it were possible to form a legal body capable of holding people accountable for fraud. Oh well! That Galts Gulch fiasco was posted a few weeks ago, went to the website of one of the ultra libertarian supporters and she refuses to seek legal action to get her money back because that would be going against her "principles" using the evil government agencies that she so despises. I mean I guess shes not a hypocrite but how loving steeped in the koolaid do you have to be to refuse even trying to get back money someone stole from you because it would require going through the evil courts? I'm drat sure the guy who stole it would lawyer up in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:53
|
|
