[ExI] Against government science funding was Re: New Hope for Alzheimer's Disease Vaccine
sjatkins at mac.com
Sun Apr 13 04:04:00 UTC 2008
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> I suppose we can't stop charity but do you really want to rely on it,
When the alternative is to rely on taking money from people by force
then yes, I do want to rely on private funding. However, calling it
charity is quite mistaken. Private persons, groups, corporations and so
on are more than capable of understanding the vast importance of
scientific research. If you don't have government taking much of their
wealth by force then I suspect you would see a great deal more private
> and is it a success of the free market if you do rely on it?
Is it a success of people donating their time and money to what they
believe is important rather than having their time and money looted by
politicians to support whatever the politicians think is important?
Why is there this assumption that the politicians are any more wise or
benevolent or capable than the people who earned the money the
politicians took in taxation? Isn't the evidence in the US of the
government taking 40 - 50% of all wealth and still running deficits so
large we are in hock for decades into the future quite clear that
government is not the solution?
> The main
> purpose of taxation is to pay for that which the taxpayers consider
> worthwhile but which the free market won't provide, or won't
> efficiently and fairly provide. Charity is fickle and degrading; when
> I'm given something I want it to be because I'm entitled to it.
If the "taxpayers" aka people consider it important they are free
[without taxes] to form whatever organization and money pools they wish
to finance these things. It doesn't get easier by having government
coercively collect funds. It becomes a lot harder.
Receiving money that was voluntarily paid for your efforts is more
degrading than receiving money coerced by threat of imprisonment? Come
More information about the extropy-chat