The terawatt challenge (R. Smalley)

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically your position is that if the status quo is anything other than a total disaster, it must be the best possible scenario. Which isn't surprising, that's how governments maintain their status quo power, by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the alternatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

With this kind of attitude, why even permit research in the first place? Someone might discover something that would disrupt the established power!

[Triumph36]

It's really no use arguing with pvn - anyone who swallows the free market dogma whole has no argument, since that is both their premise and their conclusion. The free market is the best way to do things, therefore the best way to do things is through the free market.

The free market will never sponsor highly theoretical research with the possibility of limited commercial applicability - not if it is run as efficiently as the dogmatists claim.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The free market will never sponsor highly theoretical research with the possibility of limited commercial applicability - not if it is run as efficiently as the dogmatists claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there's limited commercial applicability, why should it be funded? Isn't that called "pork"?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]

Again, the fact that government has managed to produce something of value does not prove that it's the best method for doing so.

[/ 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.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
How does the fact that government has unfairly distorted the market and managed to achieve some minimal level of success demonstrate the superiority of their approach?

[/ QUOTE ]
So, in pvn world
minimal success = just about every major scientific breakhtrough
?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
It's really no use arguing with pvn - anyone who swallows the free market dogma whole has no argument, since that is both their premise and their conclusion. The free market is the best way to do things, therefore the best way to do things is through the free market.

The free market will never sponsor highly theoretical research with the possibility of limited commercial applicability - not if it is run as efficiently as the dogmatists claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not consider fusion, antibiotics, satellites, or the majority of the principles behind the drugs you and I will take for the rest of our lives as "limited commercial applicability".

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.