An important question that a libertarian faces is that of government subsidized science and arts. Recently, for example, the US govt reduced its funding to the NSF (National Science Foundation). Could such activities be completely funded by the private sector? Hardcore libertarians/objectivists like Don Boudreaux, Ayn Rand, et al believe they can be. Worse, they believe it should be.
I do not.
What’s more I believe that libertarians who argue otherwise are not able to conceive the very thing that has given them this prosperity and this leisure to speculate.
Humanity has progressed quite a lot since its cavemen days. And one thing that has always characterized the steps of progress is that it was always by a miniscule few. The average human today does not deserve a fully automated rover on Mars, or the billion transistor micro-processor chip.
But such things require the leisure to think, to speculate, to research, to pursue long term goals with no short term gains. Such things require a “patron” with very large resources. In the European Imperial times, it were the Kings, Queens and various trusts and societies funded by nobles. And in modern times, it is the much reviled “government” funded by the very same average man who I said did not “deserve” the mechanism that is driving the printer on which he is printing his tax-form.
Some entities do not have benefits that are readily tangible, they cannot be converted into assets which can be traded. This is not a fault of the entity itself, it is a fault of the trading system! The average-man whom I’m maligning above, not only cannot create the billion-transistor chip, he cannot understand or appreciate the importance of the various steps of zero gain that lead to its creation. Benefits of cryptography may be obvious to the fellow, but not the benefits of hundreds of years of number theory!
Now what the libertarians want is laughable – inspite of this “trading-lacuna”, they want such entities – I am talking of scientific research and refined arts here – to be monetarized. I want the reader to grasp the magnitude of the issue – we are talking about the very bulwark of human progress here.
To put things in perspective – observe that humanity is basically divided into two sections: one that is engaged in creation – the scientists and artists and so on who make creative progress – and one that is engaged in subsistence and sustains the societal-structure that enables the former to achieve creative progress. And the current “trading systems” are by their very inception and definition geared towards the operations of the subsistence section.
As even Ayn Rand recognizes in her works, it is the creative section on which humanity depends for its survival. And for future progress. Thus, to demand that the creative section should submit its goods – which define human progress – completely to a system designed and tailored for goods of the subsistence section, which would thus necessarily shortchange the former – is suicide for the whole of humanity.
Since I have critiqued two of your recent posts, I thought I’d also post a note when I agree. your point about some entities not being intrinsically ‘monetarizable’ is dead-on.
If the markets are so against the “creative” section, then how can you explain the billions of dollars spent on drug research by pharma cos? They spend resources on “creation”, since they know that their future cash generating ability depends on it.
Sunil, I didn’t exactly say the markets are against the creative section, I just said they are not suited for the valuation of creative section goods i.e. they value it less.
This can be also be seen by the common dichotomy of general research and applied research. The post had an example: the general research of number theory, which no company would touch, and the applied research of cryptography which companies might spend resources on. Problem is that applied research cannot be done without the backbone of a lot of general research. There are a lot more issues which I might touch upon later, but all this is just about science, what about arts?
Also, as I shall argue in a later post, creativity could be used not just in sciences and arts but in other places as well. A proper incentivization and valuation of creativity is far more necessary than what most people think.
7*6,
I believe that even general research can and will be funded by voluntary oranizations/universities. Maybe some data about sources of funds for basic research will help.
As for arts, I dont see the need for any “planned” effort to fund creativity. Rich art lovers who pay millions for pieces of art they like end up supporting the artists…
I believe that even general research can and will be funded by voluntary oranizations…Rich art lovers who pay millions for pieces of art they like end up supporting the artists…
When the benefits (of general research, etc.) are too diffuse and widespread – then investment in such an enterprise is necessarily philanthrophy. Which is not a comfortable cushion to place the foot of human progress on.
Also, I see I haven’t managed to convery the seriousness of the issue at all. Consider defence of the country and a scenario in which the nation is surrounded by hostile belligerent nations. Do you think one should explore “voluntary” donations for the upkeep of a central army? The case for science and arts is more serious.