Government funding of Science / Scientific-Research

[Tsiklon]

Mostly true. Just remember that those that oppose the government funding of stem cell research are correct even though they usually are in opposition for the wrong reasons. The government should never support or oppose any type of scientific research assuming of course that nobody's rights are being violated in the process.

So you're opposed to government funding of scientific research??? Much scientific progress in the last century has been due to government funding. If there is sufficient funding for stem-cell research coming from the private sector than the goverment need not fund it, but legalize it.

[SD26]

So you're opposed to government funding of scientific research??? Much scientific progress in the last century has been due to government funding. If there is sufficient funding for stem-cell research coming from the private sector than the goverment need not fund it, but legalize it.

Define "much of"?

Where does government leverage its source of funding by force?

Do you believe that government has the exclusive opportunity and knowledge to do such things?

[tito]

So you're opposed to government funding of scientific research??? Much scientific progress in the last century has been due to government funding. If there is sufficient funding for stem-cell research coming from the private sector than the goverment need not fund it, but legalize it.

Most children were educated by the government. Most journeys took place on government roads. These aren't justifications.

[freestyle]

So you're opposed to government funding of scientific research???

I am.

Do you feel I'm wrong? If so, how much of my earnings do you suggest the government confiscate for that purpose against my will? Do you suggest a flat fee or a percentage based on how much I earn for myself?

[Tsiklon]

I am.

Do you feel I'm wrong? If so, how much of my earnings do you suggest the government confiscate for that purpose against my will? Do you suggest a flat fee or a percentage based on how much I earn for myself?

Who in the private sector would have funded the Mahattan project? I can assure you that the Apollo lunar missions would Not have been possible had it not been for goverment funding. If a private corporation were to develop nuclear weapons with no government regulation or oversight, what would stop them from selling nuclear warheads to anyone with the money to buy them? Including terrorists...

[bluecherry]

Hey Tsik, you know, were there not all these taxes forcing people to pay for all kinds of things, like tax funding being used to pay for what science the government decides to fund, private citizens and corporations would have more money to spend on other things themselves, like donating to scientific research. Also, if lots of people had all their own money to do with as they decided, you could have large amounts of people contributing little bits to fund various scientific endeavors, it doesn't all have to come from one place.

[TheEgoist]

Public funding is a fact of life for most scientific research institutes. If I were to be working on the Large Hadron Collider, I wouldn't be refusing to work because there is government money involved. However, it doesn't make it moral or how it should be.

As tito explained, you can't chalk up everything to government institutions. It's the brilliance of the scientists that is the prime mover.

[EC]

So you're opposed to government funding of scientific research??? Much scientific progress in the last century has been due to government funding. If there is sufficient funding for stem-cell research coming from the private sector than the goverment need not fund it, but legalize it.

Yes, completely. Others in this thread have already answered the second part.

Who in the private sector would have funded the Mahattan project?

Military research is legitimate to a degree, since the military is a proper use of government. However, in a fully capitalist society it would have been mostly privately funded.

I can assure you that the Apollo lunar missions would Not have been possible had it not been for government funding.

True, but so what? If the country had been fully capitalist during that time period instead of a mixed economy who's to say it wouldn't have happened more efficiently and that today we would be mining the moon or something?

If a private corporation were to develop nuclear weapons with no government regulation or oversight, what would stop them from selling nuclear warheads to anyone with the money to buy them? Including terrorists...

The government would in this case because nuclear weapons are used for war and there is no way to use them privately without violating the rights of others.

[brian0918]

Tsiklon reminds me of myself a couple years ago, when this same forum detached me from my lust for government funding as a source for all things Good.

Science is not an end in itself, but a means to other ends. Choosing science as a Good thing is - ethically - an arbitrary starting point. Anything built on such a starting point is equally arbitrary.

The only non-arbitrary starting point for ethics consists in an examination of the nature of man, with life as the standard of value. Such a foundation absolutely obliterates any claim that certain things are good simply because they happen to produce certain beneficial results irrespective of the means to those ends. So long as those means involve the violation of individual rights, or self-sacrifice, they should not occur, and that is invariably the case with forced taxation.

Edited January 10, 2010 by brian0918

[freestyle]

Who in the private sector would have funded the Mahattan project? I can assure you that the Apollo lunar missions would Not have been possible had it not been for goverment funding. If a private corporation were to develop nuclear weapons with no government regulation or oversight, what would stop them from selling nuclear warheads to anyone with the money to buy them? Including terrorists...

First note that you did not answer my very direct and specific question.

As to your question about who would have funded past scientific endeavors: It should be obvious that there is no specific answer that could ever satisfy. How could I possibly give you a name of any person that "would have" done something? The point of your question is clearly a concern that some *needed* science will never be developed if the government doesn't do it. If something is, in fact, needed then there is no reason to assume that it would be ignored.

If we understand THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT is power of force ("the exclusive power to enforce") then Government should never even be considered as a solution to *any* issue which does not require it to exercise that power. This is why I asked you who decides to FORCE me to agree with you and take money out of my pocket to pay for [insert scientific endeavor].

My general answer to military related scientific research is that it is explicitly the responsibility of Government to defend the the citizens by use of force if necessary.

It is in its nature, it is what it can do well, should do in its own self interest, and must do to provide the best possible defense of the individual rights of the citizenry.

You say you can "assure" that the Apollo lunar missions would not have been possible without government. How can you do that? Perhaps that is true when a government takes $3 TRILLION as they do now. The lunar mission in '69 cost $355 million (maybe about $2 billion now). So, put 3 TRILLION back into the economy, and I can imagine quite a lot! Totally unrestrained to invest, we might be talking about whether or not it is fair that the Google moon shuttle has 52% market share and is charging the outrageous fee of $1,200 per round trip flight.

To your terrorist concern, that would not be a problem for numerous reasons. 1.) It does no good to sell instruments of death to those who you were pretty certain would kill you. So self preservation would be the first reason people didn't do that. 2.) You would be held legally and financially responsible for aiding enemies and 3.) In the world we're talking about, the terrorists can't afford weapons like that, and no one productive enough to would have any interest in funding them.

[nanite1018]

You say you can "assure" that the Apollo lunar missions would not have been possible without government. How can you do that? Perhaps that is true when a government takes $3 TRILLION as they do now. The lunar mission in '69 cost $355 million (maybe about $2 billion now). So, put 3 TRILLION back into the economy, and I can imagine quite a lot! Totally unrestrained to invest, we might be talking about whether or not it is fair that the Google moon shuttle has 52% market share and is charging the outrageous fee of $1,200 per round trip flight.

Just a quick point of correction: Apollo cost about $150 billion in current dollars (20-25 billion back then). But I agree with you that it is likely that someone would have gone to the moon (probably cheaper), maybe not in the 60s, but perhaps in the 70s or 80s. Haha, Google would probably be able to fund such a mission now through advertising dollars alone (how much would Coca-Cola or General Electric pay to have a commercial filmed by the first people to land on the moon in 40+ years!). Just a thought, do you hear me Eric Schmidt? Setting up the first extraplanetary data center sounds like a good move to me, haha.

[freestyle]

Just a quick point of correction: Apollo cost about $150 billion in current dollars (20-25 billion back then). ...

Are you talking about the whole program? I think I just googled the moon landing (Apollo 11) at got multiple sources for $355 mil. But yes, it would be more correct to compare the whole program.

Assuming the whole program cost $150 billion in today's dollars (I think Apollo ran for about 14 years), that is about 11 billion a year. Lemme google what Google pays in taxes last year now... Actually... forget that, let's look at the big boys in energy: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1139.html

Ouch! About $60 BILLION a year! More in total taxes than in profit.

How's that for a free market?

[Marc K.]

Who in the private sector would have funded the Mahattan project?

I think most of the moral questions have been answered: It is immoral for the government to force you to support it. Also, it is not proper for the government to reach beyond its moral purview, namely, the protection of individual rights.

As to the concrete question that you ask above: the private sector did support the Manhattan Project. ...

... Nuclear energy was essentially unknown at the time and so it is hard to guess how much the general public would have supported it specifically. BUT, as part of a national defense to an existential threat, much was done by the private sector. Recycling of war materials, buying of war bonds, voluntary rationing, and most especially voluntary military service were all proper, moral, voluntary actions which many undertook in order to support the war effort.

[Cole]

So you're opposed to government funding of scientific research??? Much scientific progress in the last century has been due to government funding. If there is sufficient funding for stem-cell research coming from the private sector than the goverment need not fund it, but legalize it.

These types of objections to capitalism all stem from the same statist misconception that anything being funded by the government would necessarily cease to exist if privatized. Here are some questions to consider:

If there were significant demand for a product or service that was not yet being supplied, wouldn't there also be significant profit incentive for entrepreneurs to start supplying this product or service? If your answer is yes; why wouldn't the free market be capable of supplying the demand for scientific research just as well as it supplies the demand for clothes, cars, and skyscrapers? Wouldn't you agree that there is enough potential profit in the cure for cancer to motivate spending on its research?