Science in a Libertarian-Style Government

Economics Economics Questions
1

Hello, I’m new here. I’m a 23-year-old engineering student from Ohio and through an interest in the Ron Paul campaign have become more and more interested in the Libertarian/Austrian School view of the world. I’ve already read “The Road to Serfdom” and “The Revolution: A Manifesto” but naturally - economics, history and politics not being my primary area of study - I have some questions.

One of my first question deals with how scientific research would be funded if the government were diminished to the level you advocate. While it’s true that much scientific research is funded by large corporations, it’s also true that when the funder of a study has a commercial interest involved in the results, the integrity of the study is often diminished. An example would be studies into the effectiveness of certain drugs funded by pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, corporate research, more and more, tends to be focused on application rather then on pure science - the results of which form the foundation of innovations in the future.

Also, some research areas like space exploration wouldn’t necessarily be profitable for any one company or generation to invest in but has the potential to yield enormous returns for future generations. Satellites have become enormously important in today’s global communication networks and many other technologies developed for the space program have spun off into products which improve people’s life on earth. One day, with persistent effort, we may very well be in a position to colonize and mine resources from other planets or moons, which would also improve the chances of the specie’s longevity, which would be a major boon. The internet itself, which contributed largely to the Ron Paul campaign, was first developed in a DARP program for military applications.

However, government funding for science and especially organizations like NASA would appear to be contrary to the Libertarian ideals.

How is this reconciled then? Do you just trust corporations and individual initiative to fund scientific research? If so, what evidence is there that the free market can produce enough unbiased research to sustain the optimal pace of innovation?

I’m interested in your insights.

2

What evidence is there that these things wouldn’t have been funded if people were free to spend their money however they chose?

3

Would you fund it if you had your money back?

4

Two brief points.

  1. Government likewise has an interest in the research it funds. One example is alleged anthropogenic global warming/climate change, since the conclusion from research biased towards anthropogenic causes is for more government regulation and oversight. Another example is HIV/AIDS, where the research is skewed towards finding a virus, rather than the politically incorrect explanation of immune systems compromised by unhygienic practices and toxic recreational drugs. Yet another is genetics and intelligence, since the State’s entire public education system is based on the tabula rasa theory of human development.

  2. Government funding crowds out private initiative. You can’t assume nobody would fund science in the absence of government funding. This is like assuming nobody would pay for great art without the NEA.

5

And government doesn’t have an agenda? Don’t politiceans fool the public into thinking that their programs were a success when they in fact weren’t? Are government statistics any more worth of trust than the ones published by privates? Don’t lobbyists bend government insitutitions for their benefit?

The way to resolve this is through competition and free speech. Let universities, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, etc check on each others . Let journals publish peer reviewed experiments. Let medics and patients decide what treatment might be of greater benefit for their case.

I’m reading this book, “When Science Goes Wrong” by Simon LeVay, that mentions investigators lying to the beaurocrats and in journals so they don’t lose a grant or whatever. Material greed might drive individuals to do unethical things, but so does greed to publish a paper, be the first to discover some new gene, to have their name attached to some theory or discovery, etc. You can see how politiceans let bridges fall down, so they have money to build stadiums and lots of buildings that they’ll let detiorate since they love the inaugurations. Even charitable organizations have been found doing reproval things. That’s not limited to “evil” for-profit organizations. At least outside the government, you don’t have a monopoly that forces you to take their truth as faith. You’ll generally be able to find another point of view.

I think most pure research is done in universities. I guess lots of grants are provided by government though. That doesn’t mean however that the public wouldn’t be willing to contribute and be informed of a lot of research projects.

Anyway, if you want to make contributions for research mandatory, at least give tax payers some room for deciding to whom that money goes. It’s really sad how the receipients use some of these money to lobby back congress to get a raise next budget. Some organizations have been found to actually destroy supplies in order to not see their budget reduced! And then you have a lot of controversies where some individuals want to fund steam cell research, while others find it objectionable. This will also make these organizations more accountable and more open.

Computer networks have been developed for a lot of time in Bell Labs and among academics. There were a lot of Internet-like protocols at the time. Maybe DARPAnet pushed this technology sooner into popular use. I think they’re given too much credit though, and if network tech were given more time, we might not be stuck with some of its limitations. I don’t know the details, but I remember my networks professor talking of how Europeans wanted a couple more layers in TCP/IP and generally disliked the direction it was going. We of course don’t have the same financial backing to compete. :wink:

Milton Friedman has compromised in thing like research and a lot of other government sponsored programs. I’m pretty sure Ron Paul has defended NASA in the grounds of national defense. (or someone did in the name of his campaign to slashdot.) A lot of folks here are pretty radical, but, maybe because I live in such a socialized country, I already consider libertarian things like school vouchers. :wink: If you want more transparency and to give tax-payers some room to what research organizations their money should go to, then I’ll consider you my friend. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Nitpick: libertarian shoudn’t be written in upper-case, because that’s generally taken as a member of the “Libertarian Party”.

6

By the way, if you’d like to learn some Austrian economics, check out Economics for Real People. It’s written by a software engineer as well, who works in the financial sector. You’ll find it in the Mises store or amazon if you’d like it in print.

7

That’s not true, and understanding the subtle but important distinction I’m about to make will go a long way toward understanding a libertarian view of economics, justice, etc.

What is true is that when the funder of a study has a political interest in the resulst, the results can be tainted. It’s the difference between, for instance, finding a new drug that will be more safe and effective than the alternatives - and so would be presumed to do well in a free market - vs getting a new drug approved, which is a way to get a drug into a controlled market where success is not necessarily related to actual safety and effectiveness. The controlled market has no or fewer alternatives, and individual judgement is undermined by the presumed authority of the approving body to make those decisions.

If a corporation’s goal is to determine for themselves whether a drug is, in actuality, safe and effective, they have no reason to fudge the results, and every reason not to. If their goal is to convince someone else it is safe and effective, they have lots of reasons to fudge the results. Since things like the FDA create enormous incentives to convince others of the safety and effectiveness of a drug, while potentially reducing the incentive to find out the truth, the FDA creates a higher likelihood of bogus and dangerous drugs reaching the market.

8

On the question as to wether I would fund space exploration, I would certainly contribute what I could to the cause because I believe it’s in the best long term interests of humanity. I don’t know how big of a difference that would make though.

On the question about proving that such programs wouldn’t be funded, it’s very difficult, if not impossible at times, to prove a negative. I do wonder if there are any examples in history of similar ventures in pure science being funded by private initiative?

While I will concede that the government may have a stake in the results of certain areas of research (I’m not sure I concur with the examples you site, though) it seems to me that in most situations the results of a study would not effect the bottom line of the NSF or other government agency as much as it would a chemical company. Sure, there would be funding for scientific research in the absence of government money but I can’t help but suspect that government is in a better position to fund the type of research that requires expensive equipment and that wouldn’t necessarily be immediately profitable to any one party. Or is your position that without government intervention these sorts of programs could be funded through donations like charity?

Do you know of any examples of government funding for science crowding out private initiative?

9

Ah, there’s another misconception that will get in the way of your understanding of Austrian economics in particular.

There is no “optimal” pace of innovation. Science and technology advance by means of people seeking solutions to their real-life problems, and in part by people doing it becase they enjoy it. In all cases, research is done because someone values the results. If there’s no one to value the results more than the cost, the research should not be done anyway. If there is someone who values the results higher than the cost, the only risk to not doing it is to the people who want it, and there’s little reason to think they would skip it simply out of negligence or short-sightedness. Though that could happen, it would only provide an opportunity for someone else.

What most people who make the claim that “vital” research would not get done are really worried about is that their pet project - the mating habits of aardvarks or finding the Higgs boson - would not get done. They are free to do it if they think it’s worth the cost, but really what they want is for someone else to shoulder the cost, because of course the value of research someone else pays for is always worth the cost.

Once there’s a practical need to learn the mating habits of aardvarks or to find the Higgs boson, someone with a vested interest will do it. Or, if someone - or some group of people - with enough capital to not have to worry about practical needs gets interested in them, then they will happen. But of course, governments always have enough money to not have to worry about practical needs. The only problem is that it’s not their money, and the people it came from very much need to worry about practical needs.

10

Well Virgin and Google certainly have little problem in funding projects that catch their fancy…

-Jon

11

Indeed. Wealthy individuals and corporations often fund scientific research directly and indirectly through universities and charitable trusts. Speaking of science, the X-Prize that the Spaceship One team competed for and won was privately funded. The space industry is increasingly being taken over by private individuals and enterprises.

12

Thats incorrect. It is not necessary to study acoustics to build instruments, in fact, it is because people build instruments that we study acoustics.

It has the potential to plunder billions of dollars from the citizens of American, tangibility reducing their quality of life, but yield nothing in return. And thats exactly what has happened.

Even if there had been some windfall, taxpayers would never have reaped the reward. They carry all of the risk and receive none of the reward.

You have to get away from the idea of something for nothing. Government doesn’t crease anything. It diverts resources away from the endeavors that the owners of those resources would have otherwise chosen. If there is potential reward for space exploration then those people who seek profit would pursue it. The fact that it only happens where governments force people into funding is evidence of its undesirability.

If people were left to pursue their own happiness the world would be a better place. There is no place for governments telling people how to spend their own money.

13

It happens everywhere.

Once government undertakes funding something, people feel less of a need to do it personally. Why should any person donate to charity if the government they fund is doing it for them?

But the biggest problem comes in academia. The science funded by government is “serious” while the science funded privately is considered “suspect”. Even if science is not explicitly regulated the presence of government intervention causes academic conformity and brings it under the service of government, supporting the government cause de jure.

Academia is not beaten into submission, it is privileged into compliance.

14

Well, every disease out there has strong support groups, from families and friends, and I’m sure they put money into research as well. More popular diseases like cancer and AIDS, at least here, do regular fund-raising of course. Hell, Mises’ seminars in the USA were sponsored privately.

If you can convince people to vote for those things and give up the fruits of their labour to the government, surely you could have a movement in the direction of research communities.

I’m not sure what you mean by crowding out, but like any other government program, companies take advantage of it to do research for them. Plus, it’s very demeaning how investigators fight over this money. Budgets are actually filled with crap so they don’t lose funds next redistribution season.

By the way, there was recently a thread here of how a lot of discoveries were done without a profit motive.

Anyway, it sounds like you are questioning liberalism based on some marginal issue that isn’t even agreed upon by libertarians. I’m telling you, Milton Friedman has stated that research funding might be a reasonable role for government.

Since you like to answer to questions so much, let me throw one. :wink: What do you feel about policies like I think it’s the case in Ireland, where people can choose what university or church gets their money? (yeah, in Europe a lot of countries have a church tax.) At least, let people cut their funds for reasearch they find objectionable (e.g. steam cells, or using great apes, or whatever), and possibly let them give a bigger percentage to a cause they like (e.g. if there are alzhaimer cases in the family, they might want to fund it – a lot of folks are crazy about going to Mars, etc)?

15

LancierDombre

Welcome! May I draw your attention to an excellent book by Terence Kealey called “The Ecomonmic Laws of Scientific Research” which covers the points you raise. I found it a real eye opener.

http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Laws-Scientific-Research/dp/0333657551/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212741584&sr=1-1

With kind regards

Remnant

16

It would be funded by either private research institutes interested in higher learning or companies looking to develope new products.

State funding can lead to rather silly and trivial things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAmPIr4pcNw

Funding dictated directly by the market ensures a proportionate human investment in what is researched.

As far as space exploration, I think it’s been about as productive as the Pyramids of Ancient Egypt were…