<Ideals - and hopefully common sense - do and should play a part in government.

I'd like to think this is true, but I see very few examples of this. The key proof would be a politician who voted in a way that would be consistent with his principles, but would be certain to alienate his constituency. I am racking my brain, but can think of no examples right off hand of this occurring. Maybe you can?



You're not going to like it, but the first thing that pops into my mind is Bill Clinton and Welfare reform. He caught a lot of crap from his constituency over that, but he knew it was the right thing to do, and he did it.

Do you think that meteorology (satellite-based and otherwise)would be anywhere near where it is, if not for government spending?...



The short answer is yes. I believe such a valuable service would prove to be very profitable, and that the private sector (which funds communications satellites after all) could easily have developed and operated a weathersat system without additional government funding.



I think you are wrong. It would be profitable but not until after there had been a track record of reliability in rocket launches. Not until after the satellite technology was in existence to study the earth from space. The free market is too risk adverse to invest the kind of money needed to develop expensive new technology on that level. This is where government comes in and gets the show rolling.

The point you made earlier about NASA doing everything the difficult high tech way is true. It's called industrial policies. While industrial policies are often wasteful they are also beneficial. Industrial policies provide massive funding into R&D that often produces huge benefits down the road. Rocket and satellite R&D are a good example of industrial policies that have had tremendously beneficial free market spin-offs.