[ExI] Judging radical possibilities

[Adrian Tymes]

2011/9/25 Dennis May <dennislmay at yahoo.com>:
> I wrote:
>> What happens to private investment in science when the money
>> is taken from private hands then directed towards those supporting
>> government directed orthodox science?
>
> Bill K wrote:
>
>> Private investment in science doesn't exist. It is a myth used for the
>> purposes of argument.
>
>> Private investment is for near-term profit.
>
>> You obviously want to live in a sort of utopia nothing like the world
>> we actually live in.
>
> Are you saying science investment must come from money taken
> at the point of a gun?

Public funding is not literally taken at the point of a gun, in almost all
cases.  For one, there aren't enough guns.  If everyone stopped paying
taxes, it would be impossible to collect enough taxes to force everyone
to pay.  The system only works because most people willingly go along
with it.

Metaphorically - "almost all long-term science investment (and the
majority of investments that can rightfully be called 'science' have a
long-term focus; shorter-term investments are more often rightfully
called 'technology', or things less related to science) only comes from
institutions, such as governments, that care about long-term" is, I
believe, a factually accurate statement.

> I see it as a problem of investors not putting
> money into science because it is difficult to financially compete with
> others who are able to extract money as needed at the point of a gun.

It's not about competition. It's about lack of provable return on investment.
Private money demands provable return on investment (and specifically,
return to the investor, not just society at large) - which basic science can,
inherently, almost never offer.

> Long term investment was common in freer economic times.

Actually, no, it wasn't.  Depending on which times you mean, either the
investors you're thinking of were actually the government (and really were
taking more of its income at gunpoint or swordpoint), or the investments
you're thinking of weren't long term (by today's standards), or what you're
thinking of wasn't nearly as common as you think it was, or the times
were not as economically free (i.e., in the '60s & '70s, tax rates were
much higher than they are today, and anyone who tried finance practices
that financiers are vilified for today would not have been allowed to
succeed - by the government, by the established finance industry, or both).