Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Who Should Pay for Science?
Michael Levin
As Congress considers cuts in science funding, lamentations are rising. "We're dominated by fools," said one Democrat. "At risk is the type of Government-financed research that has put men on the moon," intoned the New York Times. "Such cuts portend wide changes in American science and American life." A few years ago, a Harvard physicist compared federal refusal to build the Superconducting Supercollider to medieval Europe allowing itself to be overrun by the Moors.
All hype. There is no reason for taxpayers to support trips to the moon, particle physics, or any other research not directly serving defense against external or internal aggression, the core function of government. Funds for basic research can be allocated by the market.
Bear in mind that, while some socialized science is worthwhile--weather satellites, for example--private industry, not the government, manufactures the satellites and the launch vehicles. Agencies like the National Bureau of Standards that run their own facilities buy their equipment from these contractors. (Dupont, not "the Manhattan Project," built the plant that made the plutonium for the atom bomb; had it had the will and the money, it could have built the plant on its own.)
All government does is channel resources, thereby influencing what problems will be explored and who will do the exploring. The question is whether the government has any more business doing this than it has deciding what shows run on Broadway. An author wishing to have his play produced solicits the support of investors, whose decision to buy in is influenced by idealism plus the number of tickets the play is thought to sell. It is not too much to ask scientists wishing to perform experiments to find backing in the same way.
Much research is already market-driven. Pharmaceutical firms fund development costs, and in the process supply a cornucopia of new medicines. Altruistic alumni support university laboratories. The system of weather and communication satellites, if profitable, would certainly be self-supporting once privatized.
Sure, runs the reply, but that's because most people grasp the practical applications of science. The big argument for subsidizing fundamental research is that it is over nearly everyone's head. Just as the average person has a sufficiently clear idea of what breakfast is all about to decide for himself whether to try a new cereal, he knows enough about how he feels to choose medications. When he lacks expertise, but knows what the experts think, he can rely on their judgment--reading only critically acclaimed books, and taking tests his doctor orders. But the average knowledge consumer cannot evaluate basic research. Unfamiliar with curved spacetime and the zoo of elementary particles, unable to understand so much as the titles of articles in physics journals, he cannot even evaluate evaluations. He has no way of deciding whether to help finance searches for gravity waves of proton decay.
Market transactions based on adequate information may satisfy all transactors, but too few people know science for success in the marketplace to measure the value of basic research. Hence (the argument concludes) government must direct resources where the scientific community says they should go.
The flaw in the argument is that it overlooks the scientist's obligation to get his ideas across. After all, a would-be researcher is selling something; in exchange for support, he offers to pursue certain lines of inquiry. If he wants any takers, therefore, he had better be able to explain what he wants to find out and why finding it out would be good.
He hardly bears this burden alone, for all new products are to some degree unfamiliar, and must be explained to the public. People were not born knowing the advantages of automatic transmissions over manual. Vladimir Zworkin had to persuade the management and ultimately the stockholders of RCA to fund his research into the wireless transmission of images. The uses of television seem obvious to us now, because they have shaped our world; Zworkin lived in a different world, most of whose inhabitants were as familiar with electromagnetism as we are with the topics of current research.
A researcher can persuade others to support him in numerous ways. His sales pitch, like Zworkin's, might be the prospect of a lucrative new technology. Research has epistemic as well as financial rewards: a scientist can appeal to the intellectual curiosity of his peers, pointing out how his project might help their own research.
Most psychologists interested in the heritability of personality traits would be happy to support a study of the heritability of alcoholism, for instance. A scientist might offer a subscription service, publishing a newsletter for contributors to keep them posted on breakthroughs. (Thus did Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica come into the world; a number of Newton's acquaintances put up the money to allow him to publish it, and in return they received copies.) He can try to make his case to laymen in laymen's terms.
Should he fear his ideas are too abstruse, he might seek to interest professional sages like Carl Sagan who have the public's ear. Ernest Rutherford once said, "If a piece of physics cannot be explained to a barmaid, then it is not a good piece of physics." Rutherford may have exaggerated, but if the barmaid can't understand the physics, why should she be expected to pay for it?
Suppose a scientist proves unpersuasive, he enlists no support, and his experiment is not done. An unwanted service has been removed from the market, whether we say the public is blind to its own interest, or that our man failed to make them see it. But--the second argument for subsidized science--don't we lose knowledge, and didn't I as much as admit, when I mentioned intellectual curiosity, that knowledge is good? Of course it is, but, like every other good, its acquisition carries costs which must be balanced against benefits.
Not all knowledge is worth having. Nobody cares how many blades of grass there are in Central Park. Some knowledge that might be worth having cheaply--like what all your associates really think of you--is too expensive. You have better things to do than snoop around the office all day. The human race does not have the resources to answer every question. Choices must be made. On the principle that those who want something should be the ones who pay for it, those who want a particular question looked into should be the ones who finance the looking.
It is often said that basic research has become relatively expensive. So it has, for the simple but momentous reason that most of what can be learned by observing the world under normal conditions has been learned already. Galileo determined the laws of motion by rolling balls down a few home-made ramps.
New knowledge today requires tremendous energies (subatomic particles are hard to smash) and exquisitely sensitive instruments (gravitational waves, if they exist, are minute), both of which are costly. But to take this as warranting subsidies for science is like arguing that, since movies are much more expensive to produce than they used to be, the government should subsidize Hollywood.
Much highly touted federally funded research is actually of dubious scientific value. For $25 billion the Apollo Program discovered that the Moon is made of rock, which everyone knew already. Incredibly, the Hubble Telescope, admittedly a remarkable instrument, has been placed in low Earth orbit and will burn up in the atmosphere in a few years.
Everything done by the manned Space Shuttle could be done far more cheaply by robots. When the Shuttle ferried astronauts to repair the Hubble, a scientist associated with the former Soviet Union's own moribund shuttle program observed that the rescue mission cost more than a new Space Telescope would have.
But the worst byproduct of tax money for science, I suspect, is its corrupting effect, as scientists angling for that money distort and exaggerate their research to make everything appear a matter of "national interest" (and universities rate faculty by their ability to attract such money).
Some years ago there appeared in a philosophical periodical an article entitled "Semantic Theory and the Word 'Good.'" It was perfectly decent, but, as its title suggests, not of great interest to anyone outside a circle of academic specialists. Yet, on looking at the footnotes, one discovered that the research for it (which consisted of sitting in an armchair and thinking) had been supported by the Air Force. Somehow, the author had convinced the Pentagon that the future of the Republic hinged on issues in the philosophy of language. There is a fundamental dishonesty about such affairs, and honesty, one would think, should be the first virtue of scientists.
-------------------------------------------
Michael Levin teaches Philosophy at the City College of New York
Closely related is the question of constitutionality of government funding for science, recently approached in The Forgotten perspective on Stem Cell Research.
Our previous thread was on stupidity of safety laws: Legalize Drunk Driving.We shall resume that inexhaustible topic next week.
The bumps are from Goethe's Faust (translated by George Madison Priest).
Meadow and field have I forsaken,
That deeps of night from sight enroll;
A solemn awe the deeps awaken,
Rousing in us the better soul.
No wild desires can longer win me,
No stormy lust to dare and do;
The love of all mankind stirs in me,
The love of God is stirred anew.
Be quiet, poodle! Don't make such a riot!
Why at the threshold do you sniff the air?
Lie down behind the stove in quiet!
My best of cushions I will give you there.
Then Reason once again discourses
And Hope begins to bloom again;
Man yearns to reach life's flowing sources,
Ah! to the Fount of Life attain.
Snarl not, you poodle!
The Spirit's helping me! I see now what I need
And write assured: In the beginning was the Deed!
If I'm to share this room with you,
Poodle, then leave off howling,
Then leave off growling!
But what is this I now must see!
Can that happen naturally?
Is it phantom? Is it reality?
How long and broad the poodle grows!
He rises up in mighty pose,
'Tis not a dog's form that he shows!
What spectre have I sheltered thus?
He's like a hippopotamus
With fiery eyes, jaws terrible to see.
Oh, mine you are most certainly.
Incubus! Incubus!
Step forth and end the charm for us.
Am I again a victim of delusion?
That streaming throng of spirits - gone are they?
Dreamt I the Devil through some mere illusion?
Or did a poodle only leap away?
"Government funding of research unrelated in a direct way to national defense is immoral...each time the government funds something unrelated to its core function of protection of individual rights, it is forcing all to pay for the (justifiable or not) curiosity of some."
Such ignorance is overwhelming. You have no clue as to the scope of what Gov. funded research has produced. I thank God folks like you are NOT running our country.
Nice post, annalex. I thought some of my friends should read this common sense and possibly re-evaluate the gushing admiration for 43's big gov't intrusion into private sector research.
Government funding of research unrelated in a direct way to national defense is immoral
Speaking as a self-proclaimed Libertarian, I think sometimes the focus is a little too much on the spending side. Actually, spending itself isn't immoral because it isn't an initiation of aggression. What is immoral is coercive collections (taxation) that is generally used to get the money to spend in the first place.
Theoretically, it would be possible for the government to collect money in a voluntary manner and with user fees and the like. So the issue of the moral neutrality of spending would be more obvious.
This is where cultural conservatives seem to split with good Libertarian thinking. Such conservatives believe that if the spending is for valid purposes, the collection of the funds can be through coercive means. But really, that doesn't make them any different than liberals -- it just means their spending priorities are different, not their underlying view of the moral utility of taxation.
Who Should Pay for Science?
Duh. The Rich. Or at least the top 1%.
Zmanson's reply is a classic example of what I just said above -- the ends justify the means.
Well said.
Science wins out in the end. Years ago arguments were made, on moral, theological grounds that-
"Theological Qualifiers as follows: 1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith. "
It was herasy, it was 17th Century arguments much like your arguments today.
You have no clue as to the scope of what Gov. funded research has produced
You have no clue as to what private research might have produced if the gov't had not affected the directions of research through restrictions on funded areas.
Broaden your perspective. The gov't is not on your side. Any benefit you have gotten from taxpayer-funded research is an accidental byproduct of the gov't's true agenda.
"The gov't is not on your side. Any benefit you have gotten from taxpayer-funded research is an accidental byproduct of the gov't's true agenda. "
An amazing paradox. Apparently educated, technologically proficient folks can be totally ignorant. Amazing.
Such ignorance is overwhelming. You have no clue as to the scope of what Gov. funded research has produced. I thank God folks like you are NOT running our country.
And you have no clue what that money would do if it was spent on what its rightful owners really wanted. You probably think that I would spend it on movie tickets and ice-cream instead of contributing to scientific research. Guess what, even if I did, it's none of your business.
Apparently educated, technologically proficient folks can be totally ignorant.
Why does this seem strange to you? Apparently educated, technologically proficient folks nearly elected algore to be the President. How ignorant must they be to cast that vote?
BTW, welcome to FR.
Glad to be here :)
Nobody seems to recognize the dangers of this. Bush gets a pass even though this kind of thing so closely resembles Mengele's illigetimate "science."
And those of us who are incredibly skeptical of the direction that AIDS/HIV research is going are stuck.
We still have to pay.
All hype. There is no reason for taxpayers to support trips to the moon, particle physics, or any other research not directly serving defense against external or internal aggression, the core function of government. Funds for basic research can be allocated by the market.
I am a very hardcore libertarian, as many of you know, and I disagree.
The government has a Constitutional obligation to facilitate interstate trade. Many of the things it does to fulfill this obligation would be done better by the free market (maintaining roads, for example). Basic research, the soil out of which all technological progress grows, is not among the things done adequately by the free market.
The free market can sometimes take a flyer on research whose long-term profitability is highly unlikely, but not often. Very few basic research projects pay off economically at all. The ones that do can easily pay for all other basic research, but any but the largest companies could easily go broke waiting to win the unrestrained basic research lottery, even if the lottery pays out five bucks for every dollar bet on average. You can never predict where the payoff will be.
Suppose that a huge company decided, in the 1940's, that eye health was the most important thing in the world. All research efforts henceforward would go into curing eye diseases, and developing surgical techniques for the eye. No doubt there would have been some advances in eye health. But in the end, this company would have missed the boat on eye health and surgery. The most important question ever asked, as far as eyes are concerned, is "what happens to ammonia molecules when you wiggle them with microwaves"?
The answer to Charlie Townes's question led to the development of the laser. But who saw laser eye surgery at the time? Who saw directed energy weapons, or high-bandwidth communication? It was just a physics question of interest to nobody but a curious navel-gazer. And why should such a man be indulged with public largesse?
A healthy program of basic research is as important to the national economy as a healthy banking system, or free international trade. The government has a Constitutional responsibility to keep it functioning.
Heehee. I heard that gauntlet smack the ground all the way over here.
"A healthy program of basic research is as important to the national economy as a healthy banking system, or free international trade. The government has a Constitutional responsibility to keep it functioning. "
Well stated. As with any funding program, some funds are not used wisely, but the outcome of Gov. sponsored research is a list too long and to complex to publish. Basic science (R1 funding) often yeilds only quesions, but often also leads to direct products and discoveries that enhance our lives many times over. The blanket disregard for anything Federal in nature is both myopic and stupid.
"You have no clue as to the scope of what Gov. funded research has produced. "
Thank you for that excellent defense of the Constitution.
I seem to be fiesty this weekend. Probably due to deprivation all week long. Apparently, all work and no play makes otters get into peoples' faces.
Ah, the old "Constitution" gambit. When one opposes something done by the Gov., and exisiting law is in place to support it, then the only recourse is to fall back on the Consitition. Everyone is a Constitutional Lawyer and can show ANYTHING is Un-Consititutional. Such an argument is without substance. Saying Gov.funded research is Un-Constitutional is no argument at all.
Would otterpond do some of us a favor (well, me a favor, I won't speak/write for other's opinions) and explain what type of citizens voted for Nader? That's who kept goron from getting into the WH; I weary of trying to understand the reasoning of folks who have conservative views yet stay at home on election day, then assault the boards with their condemnation of the election outcomes beginning the day after the votes cast and manufactured are counted. Going into Nov I tried to point out that Bush would need a 3 to 1 advantage in actual votes, to overcome the manufactured count for goron. Was I wrong, otterpond? If the Nader voters had stayed home or a few voted for goreghoul, goron would be prez #43 ... and that scares the hell out of me when I consider what that says about my fellow Americans!
Basic science (R1 funding) often yeilds only quesions, but often also leads to direct products and discoveries that enhance our lives many times over.
You're missing the real point. The questions are, overall, more important than the products. The purpose of basic research is to create understanding, not wealth. The free market creates wealth, and it does it better than any other possible system. If wealth creation were the goal of basic research, then the free market would surely do it splendidly on all fronts. The relevance of basic research is that understanding is almost universally a prerequisite for wealth creation.
See post #30, otter. I would answer for you but I'd hate to take your fun from you.
There seemed to many more than a handful that support Dr. Keyes...that is more frightening!
"The relevance of basic research is that understanding is almost universally a prerequisite for wealth creation."
I will not aruge that point. We agree here. Gov. programs like the SBIR program are a good marriage between private enterprise/Gov. and funding for research and applications.
The blanket disregard for anything Federal in nature is both myopic and stupid.
The blanket disregard for for Big Government expansion and subsequent intrusion into areas outside those mandated by the Constitution is both misguided and dangerous. Governments don't usually become dictatorial overnight. It is a progressive process that can only be successful in the absence of determined opposition. I am simply opposed to the process continuing.
All hype. There is no reason for taxpayers to support trips to the moon, particle physics, or any other research not directly serving defense against external or internal aggression, the core function of government. Funds for basic research can be allocated by the market.
I agree -for the most part- with the author. Gov't. largesse has caused agencies to become fat, lazy admirers of the status quo. For every example of good that has come from taxpayer-funded major research (nowadays what else is there?) there are many more examples of foolishness and waste. Several examples of junk science and waste are revealed everytime our legislature or executive brance looks for ways to cut spending.
Scientists, like everyone else, should have to earn a living. Just as the post office and social security would benefit from privatization, so would "science."
Very few basic research projects pay off economically at all.
You've just proved that casinos would never survive in a market economy. :-)
You really don't understand basic science, do you?
I voted for Bush knowing algore would be infinitely worse. When Bush does the right thing, which he does manage ocassionally, I am vocal in his support. When he does the wrong thing, I am equally vocal. What's the problem with that?
BTW, I would appreciate it if you posted to me when you want to critize me.
Thanks for the ping. I would have missed it. I am at work today and don't have time to read every post.
You've just proved that casinos would never survive in a market economy. :-)
On the contrary, casinos practically have a guaranteed payoff for their owners. A casino is the next best thing to a license to print money.
Good point.
An amazing paradox. Apparently educated, technologically proficient folks can be totally ignorant. Amazing.
Wow! I've only happened upon two threads this morning, and here you are, on both, calling those who disagree with you "ignorant."
Such "herasy!"
Basic research, the soil out of which all technological progress grows, is not among the things done adequately by the free market.
LOL.
I suggest you're biased and are ignoring the reams of evidence to the contrary.
No government research program has ever surpassed privarte research. In fact, most research conducted by the government has resulted in the politicizing of the "scientists" doing the research.
AIDS, Global Warming, Weapons Research, Space etc etc.
The government now holds patents (something it should NEVER own) on seeds which are designed to produce sterile crops.
Monsanto has licensed this technology and through the WTO, third world country farmers are "encouraged" to use these crop seeds.
Nevermind that there is a danger of serious famine which could ensue by the use of this "technology" and never mind that it's sole purpose is to enrich Monsanto.
Your judgement is clouded. Allowing the governnment to fund research is an explicit grant of monopoly to the government which has no buisness being involved in science other than its explicitly stated authority to grant copyrights and patents.
A. The government has a Constitutional obligation to facilitate interstate trade.
B. The government has a Constitutional responsibility to keep [a healthy program of basic research] functioning.
I don't quite understand how B follows from A. Please clarify.
A healthy program of basic research is as important to the national economy as a healthy banking system, or free international trade.
What about stores that cell food, medicine, etc? Aren't they important to the national economy? Why are they still in the private sector?
Assuming research funding is constitutional, how do we decide which areas to fund? The amount of spending?
I have to disagree. If government is allowed to sponsor and fund research, that money has to come from somewhere. It's us, the taxpayers, who suffer.
Despite what Mr. Zmanson says, there is a constitutional issue at work here. The federal government does not have the power to fund research. If you want it there, propose an amendment.
But there is more than that. Once the federal government is deemed to have the power, where does it stop? Who holds the money bag? Where is the limit on what can be researched?
I'm sorry, it does not matter a whit how much good government research has done if they have to steal the money to do it.
I explained physics perfectly to a barmaid last night, and take my word for it, she understood it on subatomic level. And I didn't have to pay for it. (Although I drew the line at rolling my balls down her ramp.)
It was a good piece of physics, I can tell you that.
There was very little cost, even though it involved tremendous energies (we were already smashed) and exquisitely sensitive instruments.
p.s. Thanks for reminding me why I never read Faust.
Just being,
Very few basic research projects pay off economically at all.
You've just proved that casinos would never survive in a market economy. :-)
On the contrary, casinos practically have a guaranteed payoff for their owners. A casino is the next best thing to a license to print money.
It's the customers. What's their incentive???? How could a casino attract customers according to your theory?
You really don't understand basic science, do you?
I'm pretty good at picking up false dichotomies, though.
Read "Revolt of the Masses" by Ortega y Gasset, clearly science should be totally divorced from government. Totally.
Not to worry, January will be here before you know it. Heehee.
Such ignorance is overwhelming.
Such arrogance is overwhelming.
You have no clue as to the scope of what Gov. funded research has produced.
Seems to me that the only thing that is produced with Government funding in most cases fails to enhance the lives of the citizenry while at the same time increasing the citizens dependence upon the goverment for existence. Please enlighten us all as to the wonders of government funded research and tell us how it has made myslef and my families lives better.
I thank God folks like you are NOT running our country.
You are SOOO in denial. Are you by any chance dependent upon government funded research?.
---max
My usual bump, with essential links for anyone interested in liberty:
A
TREASURY OF PRIMARY DOCUMENTS . The
ultimate source of history links.
A Chronology of US
Historical Documents.
The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School, more historic documents.
Laissez Faire
Books.
Second Renaissance
Books.
Reason
Foundation.
Ayn Rand and
Objectivism.
A Timeline of Western Philosophers, a great
resource.
One suggestion put forth as a market-oriented approach to basic research is "idea futures," as described in this article. What do you think?
Idea FuturesBy Robin Hanson
When a science question - about, for instance, the greenhouse effect, the "Star Wars" missile-defense system, or pesticide toxicity - becomes relevant to public policy, few of us are confident that the opinions expressed in popular media or in congressional testimony reflect the best available information. Instead, we fear bias - from corporate interests and politically correct doomsayers - or we're just resistant to new ideas.
So consider a radical, market-based alternative for reaching scientific consensus. Imagine a betting pool on disputed science questions, where the current odds are treated as the current intellectual consensus. For example, people might bet on whether cold fusion will be used to produce power by the year 2020. Right now, the odds would be fairly low - say 20-to-1 against. But as the results of new research became known, and if more people became convinced that cold fusion worked, the odds would rise. And if cold fusion became a reality by 2020, those early supporters would make a bundle.
Such betting markets would become "idea futures" markets - like corn futures markets, except you'd bet on the future settlement of a scientific controversy instead of the future price of corn. The system could increase the public's interest and role in science, and betting odds could serve as a scientific barometer to guide mass media and public policy.
Here's an example of how it might work: Ann, a graduate student in biology, proposes a new theory about how AIDS destroys the immune system. If true, her theory has important implications. But relevant academic insiders insist the theory is wrong and refuse to discuss the issue further.
Today, Ann could keep working on her own, or she could call a news conference. But using the idea futures market, Ann would have a new option. First, she would pay a reputable judging organization to decide the potential correctness of her theory. Then Ann would pay someone else to create a market where anyone could bet on this verdict.
If policy makers take the current market odds seriously, Ann need only post offers to bet in favor of her theory at odds of, say, 1-to-3. Now, if the academic insiders want their views reflected in policy, they would have to bet against the theory in order to drive down the odds (say, a 5 percent chance that Ann is correct). Naysayers could no longer suppress Ann with silence or ridicule.
True, if the academic insiders had more money to spend, they might win this fight, at least for now. But with more money at stake, speculators might well take a keen interest in Ann's theory. Science patrons and policy makers might decide the question interests them enough to subsidize betting markets on Ann's theory, promoting research with-out taking sides. Research labs could compete to win the prizes these subsidies create, investing their own money in the hope of later rewards. Finally, as research moved the weight of evidence - and the market odds - in Ann's favor, she and the speculators who supported her could sell their bets at a healthy profit.
The concept of idea futures might sound at odds with the world of science, but it has its precedents. Four centuries ago, for instance, in a "scientific revolution," European "outsiders" formed scientific societies where their theories could be judged by how well they agreed with observations, not by how well they agreed with the authorities of the day. Researchers demonstrated their discoveries at society meetings, and patrons sponsored competitions to reward the best solution to a specific problem.
A healthy program of basic research is as important to the national economy as a healthy banking system, or free international trade. The government has a Constitutional responsibility to keep it functioning."
Physicist, good to see you and hope all is well with you and yours. I agree with the premise, but not the methodology. There is no reason that our government has to take as much money out of the economy as it currently does. In fact, if it were held to the limitations of the constitution, there would be tons of available capital to fund research from a private perspective rather than the current monopolistic government one. Research-dominated mutual funds would be in abundance as are todays lottery's and casinos, all taking advantage of the weakness of greed within the soul of man. The fact is that at any moment a particular research project fits into our constitutional authority to protect and maintain our national interest, it will be eligible to receive consideration for federal funding. This protects the research from federal intrusion at it's start, and offers insurance that will sustain it should it become constitutionally viable.
The government can do lots of things on the legislative side to encourage research without spending a dime of the taxpayers money. Doing this and reducing it's take of our GNP would do more to encourage research than anything else. Government can do lots of things to help this happen. Dominating the process isn't one of them.
You are such a comfort to me.
LOL. I try.
You have Freepmail. I won't respond to your false rhetoric publicly.
You are going to thrash me in private?
Hey, riley, I am being invited into the woodshed!!!!!!!!!!
The big argument for subsidizing fundamental research is that it is over nearly everyone's head.
Harumpf.
Private industry can't do this because they have a profit motive, not because nobody understands it. As far as being over nearly everyone's head, this is a Liberal attitude. Most people can understand fundamental research, they simply have other interests.
"How could a casino attract customers according to your theory? "
Very simple. Most folks don't understand the math...the odds favor the House. Some do win, that is true, but the House comes out ahead in the long run. Casino's are a very good buisness. How did you think Casinos stayed in business? Just lucky?
"Assuming research funding is constitutional, how do we decide which areas to fund? The amount of spending? '
That is why we have elected bodies. It really is simple.
"Please enlighten us all as to the wonders of government funded research and tell us how it has made myslef and my families lives better. "
========
This sums up pretty well how it can work.
" Basic research leads to outcomes that were unexpected or whose emergence took place over many years or even decades after the basic research was performed. For example, pre-World War II basic studies of research on atomic structure contributed, after decades of work, to today's Global Positioning System, an outcome of great practical and economic value.
"
I don't have time this morning for a lengthy exchange, but wish to point out just a few "scientific" discoveries the feral gummit has funded and promulgated, much to the dismay of citizens of this once free republic who treasure the virtues of liberty, self-government and, above all, the right to defend oneself against aggression:
Not at all, my dear friend. Not at all.
"Allowing the governnment to fund research is an explicit grant of monopoly to the government which has no buisness being involved in science other than its explicitly stated authority to grant copyrights and patents. "
==================
"The federal interest in the transfer of technology from government laboratories to the private sector is based on several factors. The government requires certain goods and services to operate. Much of the research it funds is directed at developing the knowledge and expertise necessary to formulate these products and processes. However, because the government has neither the mandate nor the capability to commercialize the results of the federal R&D effort, it must purchase technologies necessary to meet mission requirements from the private sector. Technology transfer is a mechanism to get federally generated technology and technical know-how to the business community where it can be developed, commercialized, and made available for use by the public sector. "
I am simply opposed to the process continuing.
As am I. Liberty will not die immediately, but by a thousand cuts inflicted through such programs as "health care," "social security," and "basic research."
You will be interested in the exchange that took place on "Forbes on Fox" yesterday regarding the President's decision to fund "some" stem-cell research.
Forbes Senior Editor Brigid McMenamin was asked, "Why is federal funding of stem cell research so important to the private efforts in this area?"
Her reply: "It isn't. The president has betrayed his oath of office by authorizing federal funding for stem cell research. Nothing in the constitution gives him that authority. And without it, he's no better than a pickpocket."
Amazing! A journalist that understands the limits to federal authority!
The show transcript should be online tomorrow, from Forbes on Fox Recap Archive.
You have no clue as to the scope of what Gov. funded research has produced
My argument is that tax-funded research is immoral because voluntarily people would pay for research in different measure. The article itself argues that the same or better research would have resulted if funded privately. Neither argument rests on any assumption about the scope of government-funded research.
What is immoral is coercive collections (taxation)
Absolutely. The moral argument about funding would go away if the government allowed taxpayers an option not to fund some or any research.
Wow! Right on the money.
This issue is so fundamental that it is a shame there is such a controversial issue at its core. The cacaphony of argument detracts from understanding the basal issue of acting outside the law, not to mention acting outside the best interests of the Nation.
Bush's actions remind me of my favorite line from the clinton administration. Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.
top 1% [should pay for science]
You're kidding? Of course not. People inclined to pay for science should do so as an investment or as a charitable contribution. The income level is completely irrelevant.
"The moral argument about funding would go away if the government allowed taxpayers an option not to fund some or any research. "
LOL...I don't think you have thought this one through. Lets say...I am a Quaker. I am morally offended my tax dollars are spent on arms to kill. I don't want any of my tax dollars spent in this way. It does not take much imagination to see where this will go....think again.
Science wins out in the end. Years ago arguments were made, on moral, theological grounds that [the earth is flat, etc.]
[...] it was 17th Century arguments much like your arguments today.
No one on this thread is suggesting morality or lack of morality in any particular outcome of research. The issue is whether the government morally should pay for it.
skeptical of the direction that AIDS/HIV research is going
AIDS research is a good example of misdirected funding. A wholly preventable disease gets priority funding over top killers such as cancer or heart failure. The fact that many taxpayers believe that most instances of AIDS are a result of moral lapses on behalf of the sufferers makes compulsory taxation to benefit AIDS research particularly abhorrent.
The government has a Constitutional obligation to facilitate interstate trade
What is moral (I argue that tax-funding of science is not), what's rational (the article argues it is not), and what is constitutional (A.J.Armitage's article argues it is not), -- are three different things. You should advance the constitutionality argument on that thread. But since you bring this up, I don't see any relation between interstate commerce and science. Note that if the Constitution wanted to authorize science funding it could do so just alongside authorizing the Patent Office, where is mentions the importance of "useful arts" (=science) explicitly.
Very few basic research projects pay off economically at all
Presently, a scientist appears in front of congress and presents his arguments about importance of such economically unreasonable project. Absent government funding, the same scientist would appear in front of a philanthropic organization devoted to the support of science and make the same arguments. So we are down to the same two issues: Is it moral to demand payment for a project the taxpayer wouldn't fund voluntarily? Would a philanthropy which can raise money based on its professional judgement of the importance of the project, allocate funds available to it better than a government which does so based on the fixed amount it can extort (not for any exciting project but dully as taxes) and on the parochial interests of the politicians?
If wealth creation were the goal of basic research, then the free market would surely do it splendidly on all fronts.
Modern corporations such as IBM, DuPont, or Glaxo surely understand the importance of basic research and have funds to pay for it. But it is also incorrect to equate the free market with free society, which has plenty of endeavors unrelated to profit yet funded very well.
I never read Faust.
You are wrong.
Thank you.
Get off me, you Faustian poodle.
Still being,
Makes sense.
The issue is whether the government morally should pay for it.
It is a moral issue, but it is an issue of law as well. The Constitution does not empower the Feds to tax the people and fund research with the proceeds.
Private industry can't do this because they have a profit motive
That is questionable, given the evidence of how fundamental research paid off in the 20th century. However, the question is not whether the profit motive is the only right motive, but whether voluntary funding (investments or philanthropic donations) can't achieve the same or better result in lieu of general tax funding.
"So we are down to the same two issues: Is it moral to demand payment for a project the taxpayer wouldn't fund voluntarily? "
This is the flaw in your argument (I use the term with a smile). You assume the private sector would fund pure science, or research that does not necessarily have a direct payoff in the near future. I say this is not so. You assume such, but the scope and degree to which the Government funds research, research and science that has had great benefit for our society, goes beyond what a foundation or private sources would do.
Who is correct? We don't know, for to move to your assumption we would have to suspend all Gov. funding, and I don't wish to try this just to see if you might be right. THis is what is played out in Congress each day. Gladly, cooler head, smarter heads have prevailed.
I would agree that a Quaker should have a valid conscientious objection to having his taxes go for defense. However, national defense (as opposed to adventures in Yugoslavia, for example) is a legitimate function of government as part of its core function of protecting individual rights; research is not.
"The Constitution does not empower the Feds to tax the people and fund research with the proceeds. "
You are wrong. Shall we take it up with the Supreme Court? ;)
The Constitution does not empower the Feds to tax the people and fund research
Definitely. It should be no surprise that the Constitution agrees with ethics.
"However, national defense (as opposed to adventures in Yugoslavia, for example) is a legitimate function of government as part of its core function of protecting individual rights; research is not."
You show your ignorance regarding Gov. funded research. Maybe you didn't mean to lump All reasearch under one "don't do it", but the private sector and universities have had a hand, via money form Gov. research grants, in developing many of the new advances in the military. Many of the spin-offs from this research are then filtered down into products we use in the private sector.
I can't help thinking ... if corporations didn't have to waste half their earnings on paying taxes ... think of the research they could do.
You assume the private sector would fund pure science, or research that does not necessarily have a direct payoff in the near future.
There is no such assumption anywhere in the article or in what I wrote. It is possible, even likely that some research will not be done if funded privately. The conjecture, backed with argumentation, is that what gets funded will be funded by moral means and the allocation of avalable funds will be done more rationally. See the last paragraph of #75.
I will pick up where I leave off, tomorrow. Thank you for the spirited discussion so far.
Gladly, cooler head, smarter heads have prevailed.
You dodged his question, smartass.
"You dodged his question, smartass. "
You reading comprehension is lacking. We both made assumptions. I say he is wrong, he says I am wrong. No need to use tacky language...
"I will pick up where I leave off, tomorrow. Thank you for the spirited discussion so far. "
I too must leave. This is what BBs should be about. Good give and take. We will not solve the problem, but such helps each think through arguments and preconceived notions. Sometimes we come up with new concepts.
At least you were invited. I'm usually dragged there by my hair. LOL
Sure. Right after the next two appointments. Bush at least gets appointments right. For the most part. Christie Todd Whitman? puhLEEZE!
Seriously, I don't want to cast aspersions on the SCOTUS. The decision on the income tax and the 16th amend is one that I understand. But, it is so narrow and technical as to be unapplicable as a precedent for assuming taxation for any purpose is permissable.
You really must consort with more civilized folks. Entire battles have been delayed by generals insisting that the other side take the first shot.
Please accept the honor of the opening salvo, good sport and all that.
But no, Monsieur. I insist. The honor of the first shot MUST be yours!
Follow precedent. Never go to the woodshed without a formal invitation. Time for an R.S.V.P. is a nice touch.
The answer to Charlie Townes's question led to the development of the laser. But who saw laser eye surgery at the time? Who saw directed energy weapons, or high-bandwidth communication? It was just a physics question of interest to nobody but a curious navel-gazer. And why should such a man be indulged with public largesse?
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe his work was privately financed via Bell Labs, not government largesse.
I would prefer the government wasn't involved at all in financing basic research, but since I have my money extorted from me to be spent on something, I would much rather have it spent on science then most other government spending.
Stop the extortion and let each person decide what he wants to support, if anything.
voluntary funding (investments or philanthropic donations
If these were capable of funding fundamental research to the extent required, they would already be doing so. They aren't, so they can't.
Lev: "Assuming research funding is constitutional, how do we decide which areas to fund? The amount of spending? ' That is why we have elected bodies. It really is simple.
There is a reason why socialism doesn't work.
If these were capable of funding fundamental research to the extent required, they would already be doing so. They aren't, so they can't.
If voluntary contributions are not capable of funding fundamental research to the extent required it means we are taxed too much. And what the %$#@ is required extent?
Something else for you to consider: should we make robbery legal since the perps don't get 'funded to the extent required'? Or is robbery immoral regardless of the amount perps get from 'voluntary contributions'?
Regards
You reading comprehension is lacking. We both made assumptions. I say he is wrong, he says I am wrong. No need to use tacky language...
At least you didn't call me ignorant , as you have any others who have disagreed with you.
You: You show your ignorance regarding Gov. funded research
You: This is the flaw in your argument (I use the term with a smile).
You: You really don't understand basic science, do you?
You: An amazing paradox. Apparently educated, technologically proficient folks can be totally ignorant. Amazing.
You: Such ignorance is overwhelming. You have no clue as to the scope of what Gov. funded research has produced. I thank God folks like you are NOT running our country.
Some folks might think your serial arrogance is tacky
I do.
And you most certainly did dodge his question. Smartass, or should I just say ass?
Suppose that a huge company decided, in the 1940's, that eye health was the most important thing in the world. All research efforts henceforward would go into curing eye diseases, and developing surgical techniques for the eye. No doubt there would have been some advances in eye health. But in the end, this company would have missed the boat on eye health and surgery. The most important question ever asked, as far as eyes are concerned, is "what happens to ammonia molecules when you wiggle them with microwaves"?
Respectfully, what if that "big company" was named Uncle Sam.
Same result, only more far-reaching, no?
IMO, the issue of whether or not the government should pay for scientific research has been lost in the intense debate over the morality of ESCR. This article is a good start toward raising the matter.
If I receive an R.S.V.P. does that mean I have the option of politely declining the invitation? Woodsheds are not a favorite destination of mine.
" Basic research leads to outcomes that were unexpected or whose emergence took place over many years or even decades after the basic research was performed. For example, pre-World War II basic studies of research on atomic structure contributed, after decades of work, to today's Global Positioning System, an outcome of great practical and economic value. "
Nice try. GPS has enhanced my life about nil. And how many billions of tax dollars have been spent so that I can verify what I already know, which is where I am.
Wanna try again?.
---max
What you are doing right now...
"….In 1986, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) initiated the development of the NSFNET which, today, provides a major backbone communication service for the Internet.
"…A great deal of support for the Internet community has come from the U.S. Federal Government, since the Internet was originally part of a federally-funded research program and, subsequently, has become a major part of the U.S. research infrastructure.
I'd say...***swish***...all net...
You could, but that is not really PC. It is better if you avoid the invitation in the first place. Comsequences can be uncomfortable.
"The Constitution does not empower the Feds to tax the people and fund research with the proceeds. "
You are wrong. Shall we take it up with the Supreme Court? ;)
----------------------------------------
Indeed we should. -- What part of the constitution supports your view?
Nice try again. Fundamental research for what is now the Internet, if that is what you are refering to, started out as DARPA, a DoD network created to share information amongst the various DoD research facilities. Actually GPS was also based upon military requirements and subsequent research. Care to take a shot at how much the US taxpayers are recouping upon these research investments?. Research for military purposes is fully Constitutional.
---max
I would never present myslef as a Constitutional scholar, nor would I guess would you. But, being laymen, I would hang my hat on "promote the general welfare." But as I said, I am neither a lawyer nor a scholar in this area. However, we have a history and within that long history the Federal Government has participated in funding much research via many different avenues and involving many different areas. I have yet to read or hear of any of this being "un"-Constititional by any court anywhere.
I'd say...***swish***...all net...
Again, arrogance. You are a legend in your own mind.
---max
NSF is not the military. That non-military research was part of the program. There were many pieces to the puzzle. Sorry, you tried and failed.
;) actually, a small 'ledgend' here...
"The flaw in the argument is that it overlooks the scientist's obligation to get his ideas across. After all, a would-be researcher is selling something; in exchange for support, he offers to pursue certain lines of inquiry. If he wants any takers, therefore, he had better be able to explain what he wants to find out and why finding it out would be good."
Actually, scientists at research universities for example are fully aware of the need to sell their research -- they must write proposals and obtain grants if they ever hope to get tenure.
What government scientists really don't want is to have to explain themselves directly to the people who are taxed to support them. In their view, it just isn't right that they should be dependent on the good will of the plebes.
Here are a few things that were funded by the NIST Lab where they conduct research in a wide variety of physical and engineering sciences and fund programs at Universities around the U>S.
:
bioreactor for bone marrow cells
spoolable composite tubes for offshore oil drilling
capillary lenses for X-rays
This was just a cursory search.
===
The are thousands of items used daily that have been products of research funded by the U.S. Government in one form or another. I personally know about IPIX, a company that developed 360degree picturing which is being used on the Net and now in medicine. They develped the technology under the SBIR program.
You are so far off base your in the parking lot.
I would never present myslef as a Constitutional scholar, nor would I guess would you.
-- I've noticed you presume to 'guess' a lot. I'd guess it's just arrogance.
But, being laymen, I would hang my hat on "promote the general welfare." But as I said, I am neither a lawyer nor a scholar in this area.
-- You can hang our liberty on the 'general welfare' clause, as the socialists seem determined to do. -- Tell me, do you even pretend to be a conservative?
However, we have a history and within that long history the Federal Government has participated in funding much research via many different avenues and involving many different areas. I have yet to read or hear of any of this being "un"-Constititional by any court anywhere.
-- As long as we are saddled by our present farce of a 'two party' socialist regime, you won't.
This gov-research all started as defense related in WWII, and was justified, to an extent, by the cold war. -- The cold war is over.
Time to regain our sanity as a free republic. -- Can you agree?
"As long as we are saddled by our present farce of a 'two party' socialist regime, you won't"
Ok..I see rational discussion is over...goof-ball time. Sure Jack, we are in a 'socialist regime'...better check out what Socialisim really is, for this ain't it.
And what the %$#@ is required extent?
Europe, India, China, Russia, and various other countries and regions have publically-funded fundamental research programs, and they all would like to see America reduced to total servitude.
The %$#@ is required to keep America on top of the heap.
However, we have a history and within that long history the Federal Government has participated in funding much research via many different avenues and involving many different areas. I have yet to read or hear of any of this being "un"-Constititional by any court anywhere.
-- As long as we are saddled by our present farce of a 'two party' socialist regime, you won't.
This gov-research all started as defense related in WWII, and was justified, to an extent, by the cold war. -- The cold war is over.
Time to regain our sanity as a free republic. -- Can you agree?
Ok..I see rational discussion is over...goof-ball time. Sure Jack, we are in a 'socialist regime'...better check out what Socialisim really is, for this ain't it.
You just ended rational discussion with the goof ball comment, 'charlie'.
As was evident, you're just another deluded big government devotee, living the easy life at the socalist tit, imagining that the good times of 'government funding' will roll on forever..
They won't.
your ignorance regarding Gov. funded research
The government should, of course, fund the Pentagon; if dual use technologies get developed, the Pentagon has an obligation to make them available ot the private sector. The article as I understand it doesn't propose anything new in that regard.
if corporations didn't have to waste half their earnings on paying taxes
Not only that, but there also is a corrupting influence of government funds: since the economic benefit to the corporation can be derived from the political sphere, we get all those beltway bandits whose only skill is to milk the government.
I would hang my hat on "promote the general welfare."
Can you name a SINGLE do-gooder idea that wouldn't land under your hanging hat?
We will not solve the problem
We already solved it since I don't see any substantive arguments against the article left. Implementation of the solution might take a while, but let's be optimistic.
Do you think the Constitution is (was) meant to limit the Federal Government?
The National Highway system...
If a project doesn't find a voluntary source of funding, then either the potential sources are right and is it not worth funding; or the grant writer couldn't convince them. Note that under either of those condititions the government shouldn't fund the project either. Either way, I don't see any justification to extract the money from someone (the taxpayer) who has other uses in mind for his money.
issue of whether or not the government should pay for scientific research has been lost
It is true that there are far more egregious ways in which the govenrment misuses our money, so the issue of funding research in general rarely gets the spotlight.
You don't think "the National Highway system" promotes the General Welfare?
"The government has a Constitutional responsibility to keep it functioning."
I disagree. Very intelligent people like you have a responsibility to continually educate others as to the why and what direction basic research should move ... as well as convincing them to contribute. You actually do that, and many of us thank you.
What government scientists really don't want is to have to explain themselves directly to the people who are taxed to support them.
I would sympathize with them in this instance: the need for some research may not be on the surface. However, private funding should not be confused with popular funding. Both philanthropy and corporations have people qualified to pass professional judgement. The only difference is that when the government employs experts, the regional or political interests of the politicians color the decision making.
Yea, who developed the internet??? LOL Not private enterprise. I think everyone who complains about gov't research should throw out their computer and give back their Microsoft stock profits. Somehow I don't see these hypocrites doing it. LMAO
Of course the Federal Government could be and should be smaller. There is much waste (every President in my memory comes to Wash to clean it up...and fails), but there is also much good that comes from Gov. sponosred and shared research. To condemn it all as being 'immoral' and Un-Constitutional shows little real knowledge by those who do so.
The interstates were started by Ike as a national defense measure, but in any case can be justified as true 'general welfare' infrastucture, [& even by the old 'post road' cite] and paid for by user fees.
And you don't think it does? What do you think it does? OH yea...I know...troop movements. Its a military thing, so its under defense. Sure...
Grant writing is a scam. Mainly it keeps grant writers employed and not much more. In no way would $17 billion be available for NASA or bioscience if it were up to grant writers. Research institutes associated with universities would dry up if they had to rely on private investments. Scientists would be unemployable without government jobs, and physics departments would close up shop, already happening. I won't compare public expenditures on welfare programs with public expenditures on science here, except to note that one is a bottomless pit of waste and the other is the main hope for survival of America, guess which is which.
I think people, like me, have come to the conclusion that the "Internet" was a Constitutional endeavor. You know, national defense and all that. If a Constitutional case (not some unlimited "general welfare clause" claim) can be made for funding specific scientific experiments, any resulting advances in technology would have, and deserve, my full support.
Ok...here goes...all research is Military in nature. There is nothing they can not use to build a better solider, equipment, etc. Even stem cell research. Get those broken bodies back to active duty. So, all Gov. sponsored research is for Defense. Just think about it...
DUDE, there is NO "general welfare" clause. General welfare is a limitless idea. That is NOT what the founding dads meant when writing the Constitution.
They simply meant those words to refer to the numerated powers they delegated to the general government that didn't have anything to do with national defense. It's just that simple, Geez.
Even stem cell research. Get those broken bodies back to active duty.
That's even more ridiculous than your "general welfare" claim.
In effect, you are saying that under general welfare & defense clauses, anything congress wants to fund is constitutional.
As I said, one of us has a very socialistic view of the principles of our republic. -- It aint me.
You don't really care about the Constitution do you? Admit it, you're not alone.
numerated = enumerated
"You don't really care about the Constitution do you? Admit it, you're not alone. "
That's silly. I course I care. You and I apparently disagree on what certain things mean. The beauty of our system of government is that we have a way to settle that disagreement. It is called the Supreme Court. The system don't always work the way either of us like, but it is still the best thing going. So, if you think something is Un-Constitutional, make a case. Take it to court. If you win, then you win.
No, it ain't Socialist. You don't like how Congress is spending the money, then vote 'm out of office. Again, a real good system.
A class of ideologies favoring an economic system in which all or most productive resources are the property of the government, in which the production and distribution of goods and services are administered primarily by the government rather than by private enterprise
That is Socialisim. I don't support it nor do the elected officials of our Government.
"Yea, who developed the internet??? LOL Not private enterprise. I think everyone who complains about gov't research should throw out their computer and give back their Microsoft stock profits. Somehow I don't see these hypocrites doing it. LMAO"
As it happens, a precursor of the internet was ARPAnet (or DARPAnet, if you like. Whether the agency is called DARPA or ARPA varies.) So there is no hypocrisy on that point.
"No, it ain't Socialist. You don't like how Congress is spending the money, then vote 'm out of office. Again, a real good system."
I'm sorry, I was unware we lived under an elective despotism.
"The beauty of our system of government is that we have a way to settle that disagreement. It is called the Supreme Court."
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est apliare jurisdictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life.... The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Jarvis, 1820
"[& even by the old 'post road' cite] "
Jefferson would call that an innacurate citation. ( Letter to W. B. Giles, 1825)
"The only difference is that when the government employs experts, the regional or political interests of the politicians color the decision making."
Actually, the major difference is that the money provided by the philanthropist or corporation is not taken from others by force.
He (tpaine) said you are being "socialistic", NOT "you are a socialist", or "our country is socialist".
You and I apparently disagree on what certain things mean.
What certain things? Lets talk. And don't give me that Supreme Court crap, I'm talking to you. Do you really think promoting the general welfare is an enumerated power grated to the federal government by the Constitution?
granted not grated you moron.
"If these were capable of funding fundamental research to the extent required, they would already be doing so. They aren't, so they can't."
Translation:
"If these valued funding of fundamental research as much as I do, they would. But they don't so I'll just steal the money."
Yes.
So cite your quote, & make your point, if you have one.
"Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that too the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words 'general welfare,' a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare.
And what is our resource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason with the marble columns encircling them."
(emphasis added)
Translation:
"If these valued funding of fundamental research as much as I do, they would
Translated with a non-Galilean matrix to a relativistic value system.
In that case, you are for an unlimited federal government, NOT a constitutionally limited federal government. If you spend a month or so here and still feel the same way, you are beyond hope.
Please check the link I provided for you. Start reading anywhere and I promise you will be rewarded with knowledge you had not possessed previously.
Not that it will help our country any, our republic is already lost. Don't get me wrong, I am willing to suffer while the abuses are sufferable just like everyone else. But one day those abuses will be insufferable, and the proper corrections will be made. I just want as many people on the side of liberty as possible. The words you read in the link will go a long way in helping you identify the coming despotism, therefore allowing you to choose the side of freedom from that despotism. Good luck.
P.S. It really is a great source, you will like it if you care about the true meaning of the Constitution, not the fictitious one you currently advocate.
Glad you admit it.
Would you also consider the following argument compelling?
"If these were capable of [providing for the poor] to the extent required, they would already be doing so. They aren't, so they can't."
[providing for the poor] to the extent required
Changing the focus is inappropriate. Instead of pumping funds in around the base of the economic pyramid, pour some in at the capstone. The pyramid will grow much quicker. The extent of science funding required is that which will keep America pre-eminent in the world. It's all we have, and it got us to where we are. Cut it off and America will be done.
"Instead of pumping funds in around the base of the economic pyramid, pour some in at the capstone. The pyramid will grow much quicker. "
Now I know academics like to view themselves as sitting at the apex of some social pyramid that mimics the bureacratic hierarchy in which they operate. But that's just vanity.
"Changing the focus is inappropriate"
I'll take that as a "no", that you do not find that argument compelling. I must ask why, since I see no fundamental difference between it and your argument that if a free people would fund science to the "extent required" that they would be doing so now, and so they can't.
All scientists should be privately funded. There should be ZERO scientists on the government payroll.
Transfer Schmansfer.
If the government needs technology it can BUY it at fair market value just like I do. It would be infinitely cheaper and there would be no chance that it could use technology for anything nefarious.
I'll put up the private sector against the Pentagon or Nasa any day of the week.
Put up a 25 billion dollar cash reward for a missile defense system. By the time the Pentagon has geared up it's pocket protectors, the private sector will be in beta test.
If you want 6 thousand dollar toilet seats, give the government a call. If you want something that is cost-effective and actually works, call the private sector.
The purpose of basic research is to create understanding, not wealth.
Government funded research has brought us the highest infant mortality rate in the Western world. It brought us a medical community that said breat feeding was actually "unsanitary."
Today that tide is turning. Tomorrow it will turn again depending on who has the most influence.
In the 70's the "understanding" was a new ice age.
In the 90's it's Global Warming.
I can't believe that you're actually standing behind government research.
TWA 800. The FLIR cover up at Waco. While these are a bit more specific than your general examples, they are cases where our government has funded scientists to "prove" that the government was not lying.
There should be zero interaction between government and science excepting the issue of copyrights and patents. In fact that is all that is authorized by the constitution.
I still haven't rejected the idea that we can have a republic where the citizens have the requisite fitness to select good representives. Given that we still entrust "the people" with the vote, we can trust them to fund worthwhile activities like basic science research voluntarily.
They pay for it either way. I don't see the need for the coercive step of tax funding.
...You have no clue as to the scope of what Gov. funded research has produced...
Nor do you have a clue how much more is produced without nanny government. I continue the pursuit of "knowing the unknown," whether I have sufficient funding, regardless of the source. The government purse has far to much control over what research is done. The recent decision by W is a case in point. He did not ban research per se, only government funding.
I think everyone who complains about gov't research should throw out their computer
The fact that the government buys many computers and that it developed DARPANET, does not make it the developer of the Internet or Microsoft Window. Besides, you logic is generally fallacious. Since the government today funds many things, it also funds many useful things. It does not follow that those useful things wouldn't have been funded without the government.
Grant writing is a scam. [...] In no way would $17 billion be available for NASA [from private funding]
Grant writing that produces private grants is by definition not scam. Grant writing that produces government grants is indeed a scam, because it is asking the government for money it had extorted by force.
You make a good point about NASA: I doubt that any private party would finance flag-waving trips to the moon and suchlike foolishness. It is nevetheless possible that space exhibitionism could be funded like the United Way, through a popular campaign, given that the subject surely excites the mind. Either way, this is precisely why government funding should be abolished: if it does something like moon trips for pure propaganda value, it has no reason to exist. Naturally, the proverbial rocket science is a military enterprise and should be government-funded as part of the defense budget; satellite trips pay for themselves out of private funds already.
Gumption (#136): the "Internet" was a Constitutional endeavor
Zmanson (#137): all research is Military in nature
A redundant network capable of routing packets around a failure is indeed a valid military (therefore constitutionally tax-funded) project. That is ARPANET circa 1960. The Internet as we know it utilizes that idea with powerful switching equipment capable of carrying 99% civilian traffic, the PC endpoints in people's kitchens, and the HTTP, WWW, and mail protocols. The Internet grew in the 90's because of the wide use of personal computers and availability of fast routing done in specialized hardware. If the idea of packet switching were not invented by the Pentagon, when the civilian demand for it emerged in the 90's, someone at Sisco would have developed it one afternoon, -- the thing is rather obvious once you have the hardware. Nothing in modern Internet is dependent on the government, and the role the government did play in ARPANET would be considered trivial by today's standards; that is to say, when the market demand materialized, the private indistry filled the need with amazing speed: invented the protocols, built routers, servers and PCs, and lay cable.
It is apparent, and there is no need to respond to this, that you really don't understand science. Saddly, there are many around these parts just like you.
the major difference [between private and government's use of experts] is that the money provided by the philanthropist or corporation is not taken from others by force.
Of course. That is the difference we are talking about in general between the two methods of funding. I was referring to the similarity of the government's and the philanthropies' relying on experts.
I still haven't rejected the idea that we can have a republic
Some salutary reductions in government funding of science have been made in the 90's: the supercollider wasn't built and NASA was privatized to some extent. What worries me is that when cuts happen, the reasoning behind the cuts is utilitarian: let's cut X and instead fund Y. This article does the heavy lifting of giving a principled argument against government funding of research. This is the voice that is not heard. I was particularly disappointed to find just this one article among the usual sources of libertarian writing.
Another depressing thing is that the idea is so obvious. Look how hardly any arguments on the article itself were presented on this thread, they all boil down to "you don't know enough to value science" or "but the government funded A,B,C and they are wonderful".
It is apparent, and there is no need to respond to this, that you really don't understand the principles of a free republic . Sadly, there are a few around these parts just like you.
But you are useful, - as needed examples of the socialistic mindset. Thanks.
It is apparent, and there is no need to respond to this, that you really don't understand science. Saddly, there are many around these parts just like you.
You sure know how to refute opponent's arguments point by point.
Read the thread...I've made points, others have made points. This is why a reasoned discussion is impossible. There is often this all or nothing mindset.
No Gov. funding for any scientific research!...that is rubbish. If I counter, then I am a 'socialist', a commie distruptor....rubbish.
There have been many good thing that have come from Gov. funded resarch. There is much waste and even some fraud with Gov. funded research. Should we just stop ALL funded research? No, that is niether wise nor beneficial to our society.
My contention was that to stop all research funding was not prudent, for there is benefit in such. I did not say we should have unlimited Government. I did not say we should become a Socialist state. When folks take those positions in rebuttle, then it is impossible to have a reasoned debate.
We should debate what we fund, how it is funded, etc. However, when a blanket argument is laid out that all Gov. funding for research is immoral, well rational thought has left the building. Hardly anything to say to folks who really don't understand, don't wish to understand, and if you tell them something they don't agree with, they just resort to the "your a Socialist" button. Sad.
demidogs statement:"There should be zero interaction between government and science excepting the issue of copyrights and patents"
That is not rational nor informed. Why try to debate such a stance. It is silly to start with.
We should debate what we fund, how it is funded, etc.
He: Would you sleep with me for 20 million dollars?
She: Yes.
He: Well then, would you sleep with me for 20 cents?
She: No, what kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We've established what kind of woman you are, we're just haggling over the price
Looks like you want to skip a necessary step and go right to haggling over the price.
You're full of yourself. The scientific community is no less corruptable than any other community which comes into contact with the government.
If you want your blessed science to stay uncorrupted then you should get it out of government and visa versa
There is absolutely no authority in the constitution for government fund scientists. You sire obviously have no understanding whatsoever of the constitution.
"The scientific community is no less corruptable than any other community which comes into contact with the government. "
It is apparent you don't acutally read the posts, for if you had, you would know that I acknowledged there is waste and fraud in all areas, but that does not support no funding at all.
If, as you contend, all Gov. funding to science for research is "Un-Constititional", then agian, take it to court. We have a system. Use it.
Why will you not? For you know there is no case for such. You just like to Rant online.
It is apparent you don't acutally read the posts, for if you had, you would know that I acknowledged there is waste and fraud in all areas, but that does not support no funding at all.
Big deal. The government shouldn't hold patents.
You cannot point to the authority in the constitution which allows it to fund science.
Patents and copyrights are how science was intended to be funded. The government decided that inventors and scientists should profit from their work. Otherwise, there should be no patents issued from government funded science. The scientist has already gotten his reward before inventing or publishing anything of value.
Looking really hard at a leaf with an electron microscope might be "fulfilling" but it won't pay the bills.
And it isn't right to steal my money in order for you to do so.
"Read the thread...I've made points, others have made points. This is why a reasoned discussion is impossible. There is often this all or nothing mindset."
How weird. -- Seems that YOUR points are reasoned, while all others are impossible.
Dream on.
"Looking really hard at a leaf with an electron microscope might be "fulfilling" but it won't pay the bills. "
You continue to show you have little understanding of Science and what it has done for our Society. You comments scream it.
"Seems that YOUR points are reasoned, while all others are impossible"
Ah, a reasoned statement, well thought out and correct. ;)
And your comments scream that you must have my tax dollars even though I do not wish to give it.
Once again, the constitution has laid out a specific plan for benefitting the usefull arts and sciences.
Anything else taints "science."
You are doing a good job here.
Article 1, Section 8:
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I've made points, others have made points. This is why a reasoned discussion is impossible
You didn't make any points that weren't a misunderstanding of the article, and I responded to every "point" you made to me, without calling you any names. If there is any more attempts at "reasoned discussion" that you wish to direct to me, please do so, and you have my permission to assume that I am an ignorant grammar school dropout, a life long member of the Flat Earth Society, and a believer in the fundamental evil of aspirin, if that helps you concentrate.
Yes, I read that.
Indeed, if the Constitution was meant to authorize government funding of research it could do just alongside Section 8. Nobody says that the Patent Office is unconstitutional. Of course, the article speaks not to the constitutionality of research funding, but of desirability of it.
Well, start a new thread and let the games begin...this one take too long to load.
I am busy inventing a hula hoop at this moment, but in a few hours I will post a spillover thread.
The purpose of basic research is to create understanding, not wealth
I thought the purpose of science was the relief of man's estate, power over nature, over other men, and over himself. Guess I missed the boat on that one...
Thanks for the bump, annalex.
Public support for research is one of the few expressions of pure freedom today. The best and the brightest are encouraged to pursue their intellectual curiosity without regard to targeted funding, leading to a resourceful infrastructure of knowledge upon which the creation of future wealth, health and safety depends.
Public support for research is one of the few expressions of pure freedom today
If you mean freedom from worry about funding one's curiosity, that is not freedom, that's free lunch. Freedom would happen when those wishing to support the researcher's curiosity would freely choose to do so -- through philanthropy or self-centered investment. Nor would that absence of concern (what you call "freedom") be in existence with any level of public funding, since objects of our curiosity will always exceed in number objects that the public can reasonably fund.
There is one aspect of "pure freedom of research" with which I and the article have no quarrel: those scientists who had proven their exceptional talent and devotion to science should have a tenure: an ability to freely choose the topic of research. Any reasonable system of fundamental research funding, including voluntary privatized system of funding, would include this necessary element; however, a privatized system would better guard against its abuse.
If you mean freedom from worry about funding one's curiosity, that is not freedom, that's free lunch.
Of course that's not what I was talking about. There's no conversation left if all is turned to the issue of taxation.
The arts, exploration, science... these are all affordable by wealthy nations and they are a benefit to the citizens of that nation and to the world. Whether these endeavors are privately or publicly funded does not address, let alone, change their merits.
The article does not address the merits of research, only the methods of its funding. Of course, to make its case it is useful to point out some instances of futile research.
I agree with Zmanson that the metaphorical barmaid benefits from research even when she doesn't realize that. In my mind, that fact does not create in her an obligation to fund it; see in #119 on THREAD 2. If you think otherwise, I'd like to know why.
The next Pursuit of Liberty thread resumes the topic of safety laws:
Pursuit of Liberty. Killing and Lying for Safety: Airbags and the Salvation State
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |