[ExI] Private and government R&D
dan_ust at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 2 15:37:18 UTC 2009
--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Eschatoon Magic <eschatoon at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Mirco Romanato<painlord2k at libero.it>
>> Eschatoon Magic ha scritto:
>>> Instead of making a religion war of this, how
>>> about simply
>>> acknowledging that both private and public R&D
>>> funding have their
>> Rothbard supported that the public funds are better
>> used to purchase of
>> research done by private actors, not to organize the
>> research done by
>> public employees.
> Why so many inflexible rules and
> regulations? What is wrong with
> making the best decision on a case by case basis? In some
> case, the
> best course of action can be purchasing research done in
> the private
> sector. In others, organizing research done by public
> employees. In
> others, leaving everything to the dynamics of the
> marketplace. In
> others, something else. There is no one-size.fits-all magic
> one just has to roll his sleeves up and make things work.
I think the idea is not so much to shackle people with arbitrary rules as to rule out coercion. I'm not sure about Mirco on Rothbard, but my view is there should be no coerced funding period. It's not a matter of trusting the marketplace, but of allowing individuals to make their own decisions on how to use their resources. This means, if you have a particular project that needs someone else's cooperation -- e.g., for funds or for anything else -- you have to persuade them peacefully to help you -- not just get someone stronger -- e.g., that biggest of all organized criminals in any society, the state -- to force them to help you.
Don't you think that this sort of persuasion, in the long run, would go further toward developing the kind of future we want as opposed to the quick, "let's break as many eggs (or heads) as possible to make an omelete" approach?
More information about the extropy-chat