The Forum > Article Comments > Other people’s money > Comments
Other people’s money : Comments
By David Leyonhjelm, published 25/9/2017Politicians pretending to be compassionate when all they are doing is handing out other people’s money are just thieves masquerading as angels.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 25 September 2017 9:49:51 AM
| |
All politicians love spending other people's money, including this bloke, who thinks that he is better than the others.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 25 September 2017 10:10:38 AM
| |
Hey Alan B.
You've you seen this amateur video on Molten Salt? http://youtu.be/PDRWQUUUCF0 I've thought along the same lines for space launches. Maybe some kind of electromagnetic launcher that would get the shuttle to speed and at a higher altitude before it actually used its own power or needed to use rocket engines... But I'm no engineer... Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 25 September 2017 11:09:02 AM
| |
Sadly, the moral aspect is missing in this article.
"Nobody spends money more carefully than its owner. This is why it is more efficient, as well as right, for people to be allowed to keep their own money." NO. This is NOT the reason for people to be "allowed" to keep their own money: the true reason is that taking other people's money is a theft and stealing is immoral! Even if by some rare chance people happened to be more efficient with other people's money, still it would be just as wrong to steal! In my Hindu tradition, non-theft ('Asteya') is the third-most important restraint after 'Ahimsa' (non-violence) and 'Satyam' (truthfullness). In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this is the eighth commandment: "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15). --- Dear Ttbn, Let us not condemn the good Senator by automatically assuming that he helps himself to the tax-payer's money (say in salary or perks). Yes, IF he does (which is yet unproven), then he is a thief like all the others. Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 25 September 2017 11:22:52 AM
| |
If you followed this argument to its "logical" conclusion. Every single person living in their own self-created protective castle (of illusions) would have to provide quite literally everything that they need to merely survive, including ALL of the infrastructure that makes modern civilized life possible.
It is a benighted paradigm for the war-of-all-against-all survival of the fittest (fattest). Perhaps the good senator should really put his actions where his mouth is and stop living high-on-the-hog off of the public purse. At the very least he should surrender ALL of the very generous government contributions to his superannuation, and ALL of the parliamentary pension that he will get when he retires from parliament. Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 25 September 2017 1:04:32 PM
| |
Doesn't this Senator realise that the money he talks about is made and printed by the Royal Australian Mint? It doesn't come from the Government!
Posted by NathanJ, Monday, 25 September 2017 1:22:16 PM
|
That said, none more wasteful, with OPM, than spending propping up coal fired power/antique power stations that spend more downtime for repairs. Than operational time!
Particularly when, cheaper than coal thorium and median prices of $1.98PKH beckon.
Of note in this morning's news, was a desire to spend more OPM on an aerospace industry.
Well if I were in charge of that and actually concerned about OPM. I'd build a sram powered, delta winged shuttle and launch it uphill, with a really big, entia overcoming rail gun, until there was enough forward momentum to fire up the locally invented scrams.
The top potential speed of a rail gun, just below light speed!
Then, after launching and high enough, launch a satellite carrying manned or unmanned rocket from the bomb bay doors.
The rocket already nearing terminal velocity inside the belly of the beast before launching. And therefore overcoming most of the prevailing inherent inertia!
And able to complete the mission as a single stage recoverable rocket carrying a satellite payload. We would need a cost effective, long life reactor! And a dedicated recovery vessel. And, a walk away safe, thorium reactor to provide the long life space batteries, the energy for the electrically powered rail gun.
And via the catalytic cracking of the water molecule. Liquid hydrogen and oxygen, i.e., fuel for both the rocket and or the scram once it had reached maximum, natural aspiration, altitude.
After initial build program, with most of the costs upfront. Ongoing outlays could be maintained as quite reasonable and cost effective levels!
In fact, we could if intelligently led, lead the world in affordable satellite launching and where necessary, recover those whose decaying orbits made them a navigational menace for all space programs.
And if we were to provide such service? Such recoverable science as that might reveal, would also be ours?
Q:Add liquid oxygen, hydrogen, to a scramjet and what do you get?
A: A rocket able to achieve moon orbit!?
Alan B.