New to the forums but I’m famaliar with Austrian economics and a Ron Paul supporter in the general election, wrote him in, my question is in regard to the recent stem cell research. I’m wondering where to stand on this issue as I believe in the stem cell research but I don’t support federal funding of anything.
Welcome.
I guess many people on this site would say that stem-cell research is legally permissable.
Even through taxation?
I think that this hasn’t got anything to do with the principle of every individual being free. Rather, it has to do with the definition of who is to be defined as an individual! That is a very important definition, but it isn’t unique to libertarianism. It is a much wider issue.
Personally, I think that even the unborn should be considered human individuals, and I think that technological developments will soon challenge established definitions of who is a human being. And since libertarianism is based on the rights of the individual, this definition is obviously extremely important .
Stem cell research? Of course! As long as they don’t kill people for that purpose, like Mengele did.
Like you, I support stem cell research but federal funding for it. Or federal funding for anything really other than defense services. But if I had to choose something else to fund this would be it. (I would gladly donate through charity otherwise)
ProudCapitalist, what if the cells were already dead?
Natural death like natural abortion (the vast majority of all fertilisations are naturally aborted) in no way conflicts with libertarianism.
Stem cells off the body of a human being, in my opinion, are the property of that same human being, not of the state, nor of its parents. If that human being is an unborn baby, then tough luck to get his/her approval for using those stem cells for your research! That will certainly take more than 18 years! Sorry, try another way… And I belive they have, so that this stem cell issue has already been largely disconnected from the right to life of the unborn human beings).
And if they were donated by the person before his death?
Obviously, nobody here is going to support government funding of stem cell research. Most support embryonic stem cell research. The debate essentially narrows down to whether or not the embryo is a self-owner. If embryoes are self owners, then stem cell research would violate their rights, which means stem cell research should be illegal. Most natural rights advocates I’ve read do not agree with this position though.
How about embroynic stem cell research on the state level, would you support that?
I know that you weren’t asking me, but for sure every libertarian must find that stand point utterly disgusting! Under no circumstances at all, could the government rightfully claim ownership of any human being, born or unborn. That’d be nothing short of slavery!
I’d prefer that the states take this issue in their own hands than have the federal government fund it. In my ideal world, though, no government anywhere would steal money from its citizens to fund research.
^
this
Stem cells are harvestable from living adult’s, mostly from bone marrow. If you are in favor of embryonic stem cell research, then you would lilekly be in favor of cloned baby farms for spare body parts and infantcide, since all three examples, while humanesque, cannot be considered individual persons ‘deserving’ rights since they seemingly have no concept of ‘self’ identity.
I don’t support state or federal funding of anything that doesn’t protect me from force or coercion. I’d rather let the free market decide upon the rest of our ‘needs’.
[^o)]
Thanks for your replies, even though I’m against abortion I find myself disagreeing with the pro-life argument for stem cell research, perhaps it could be because I’m a bit biased IMO because my uncle has MS.
Though many times those fertilized embryos from IVF clinics are thrown into the garbage anyway.
I am new to Austrian Economics but am surprised no one has given this answer for why they are against government funded research for Stem Cells. Let me know if I am getting this right.
With private funding of stem cells in a free market there is better allocation of resources i.e. money. If there is any potential in the research, money will flow towards it. If some directions of research show no potential then money will stop flowing in that direction and flow in another direction. If one direction shows promise more money or recourses would automatically be directed towards it. Most importantly any real money or profit will only come when there is results. i.e. a cure for MS. So the inattentive is always to maximize recourses to achieve the best results.
Contrast that with government funded research. There money flows first to the research. And the money will keep flowing as long as there is further research. There is no incentive to produce worthwhile results as funding will flow either way. In fact if research was finally deemed to be a dead end or if research one day pointed towards a miraculous cure. Then research would be over and the money would stop flowing. So incentive is always research oriented and not result oriented.
Therefore if you want the best chance of stem cells doing some good down the line, trust the free market, just like you trust them to bring you the newest coolest Hi Def Flat Screen TV at ever dropping prices.