It's funny how the idea the fact that government provided some early foundations for the Internet somehow awards them full credit for it, doesn't apply to the private inventions such as electricity and the telephone without which the government couldn't have invented the Internet.
First, you're understating the government contribution. DARPA didn't just research network theory. They built a network. TCP/IP was designed under contract. Also, that point undermines the original argument, which is that entrepreneurs are necessary for innovation. Once the technology exists, development is something that can be done with a rate-regulated monopoly. AT&T wired up every person in America under such a regime.
I'm not saying that this would be my preferred model, but its one that works just fine.
For at least a year after I started on the internet in Dec 1991, any use of the internet for "commercial activity" was disallowed (and did not happen enough for a person to notice it). Spam had not been invented yet; the entire marketing profession seemed unaware of the existence of the internet; the main form of promotion I can remember is announcements of academic and technical conferences; it was OK to make a "work wanted" post on Usenet only if you wanted to become an employee ("W-2") -- contractors ("1099") and one-man consulting shops were prohibited from using the internet to look for clients.
Although a few private-sector companies (UUNET for example although started as a non-profit in 1987 became a for-profit in 1989) were influencing the internet at this time, the influence was minor compared to the influence of governments, governmental contractors (notably BBN and Mitre) and universities.
And again, the internet was already very valuable and very able to enrich people's lives -- provided that those people were willing to use command-line interfaces.
Just because government money was involved doesn't mean the government developed the technologies, nor that profit wasn't a prime motive.
Who said this? I was merely pointing out that "new" technology, as appeared in the quote I responded to, it actually usually kickstarted by taxpayer money. I am not interested in where it went from there.
Said what exactly? The comment you were responding to is titled "How can you dismiss socialism so casually?"
> I am not interested in where it went from there.
Well, that's awfully convenient, isn't it? If we only consider technology that's developed by the government it's much easier to reach the desired conclusion.
That was pretty good incentive to pipeline money to Bell Labs or the PARC: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/24/xerox_parc_an...
And look where that got us.
How about the internet? The web? Nuclear energy? All of this has been payed for by taxpayers.
EDIT: I am getting a couple of down votes, so I am assuming people are asking for some sources. Most of the research, for internet at least, was actually funded by the department of defense [1]
[1] http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/histor...