[ QUOTE ]
How about you provide some evidence that the free market would be better at primary reaserch.
So far we know that almost every novel breakthrough has been made on government funds. Please explain and cite evidence to that the free market could have done just as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/science.asp
Research is effectively an economic problem. There are finite resources, there are multiple competing uses for those resorces. In fact, many of these resources (people and material) have uses in other aspects of the economy - meaning you can't seperate research from other economic activity. It's all tied together.
Everyone already acknowleges that market action is superior to government dictation in the "regular" economy - why should research be any different?
Just the bureaucratic bungling is enough to make this decision clear. But there are other considerations. The political meddling (witness stem cell research) is, by itself, reason enough to not allow government to screw with research. Then the moral impropriety of using other people's money - again, by itself enough to make this decision easy.
Effectiveness: advantage market
Objectiveness: advantage market
Respectfulness: advantage market
Yes, people have made great discoveries with government funding. Just think of how much more could have been discovered already without government interference weighing the process down.