Big government is the bain of all good citizens. But now a majority profit from government and the few of us left who still pay into government get the shaft...

So many (most?) libertarians are libertarian where they personally want less government, but something other than libertarian where they personally want more government?

My god! They really are human!!

No, Republican's with Libertarian leanings are ibertarian where they personally want less government, but something other than libertarian where they personally want more government?

true libertarians are libertarians about everything. Don't accept a self proclamation of being libertarian define being libertarian. If you did this you'd think the Republican's and Democrats were two different partys!

That article is misguided on several levels. In the first place, if you stipulate that the level of government funding for research is more or less fixed, which I think is a plausible claim (the author's assertion to the contrary notwithstanding), then debating what sort of research to fund is a reasonable thing to do. Perhaps the more ideologically pure thing to do would be to preface such arguments with "I think we should stop government funding for research entirely, but...", but if it's a foregone conclusion that everything before the "but" is not going to happen, then perhaps it's best just to dispense with it. Ideological purity is overrated anyhow.

In the second place, the claim that "two-thirds of American R&D is funded by the private sector" should be taken with a grain of salt because "R&D" covers a lot of territory. For instance, no doubt the recent flurry of new and improved diet soft drinks is the result of a hefty chunk of "R&D" spending by the soft drink companies, but when we speak of government funding for research, often we have in mind basic research, which the private sector is more reluctant to fund. Many theorized applications of stem cell research are not ready for the marketplace yet. The risk is too high and the time horizon too long for the private sector to justify investing in them; yet, we all may benefit from these technologies somewhere down the road. I think there's a resonable argument for basic research as public good in there somewhere.

In the third place, government funding for basic research is not the cause of "big government". We could eliminate all funding for basic research, and we would still have big government. The amount of money we are talking about here really is just a drop in the bucket, and of all government programs it is probably one of the best bargains in terms of value produced for the money.

In the fourth place, claims that government funding for basic research amounts to science controlled by bureaucrats is bogus. At least in the physical sciences grant applications are reviewed by funding boards comprising respected scientists who volunteer their time to perform the reviews. You can argue that scheme is not ideal, but it's a far cry from the image the article conjures of dim-witted drones passing judgement on research they don't understand.

Personally, I think that a modest level of government funding for basic research is a good idea and ultimately benefits all of us. In some people's eyes that may well be "big government", but I still think there's a useful distinction to be made between viewing research as a public good and supporting an all-out welfare state.

-rpl

I'll ditto rpl on the 'public good' concept especially, and add another:
Has anyone less lazy than me compared private R&D growth as a percentage of GDP, rather than as constant dollars?
Is GDP growth factored in already? Or just inflation?

ARGGGHHHH! Not you too, Stephen Green! I will try and author a rebuttal post soon. In the meantime:

Pharmaceutical research and development is an imperfect market. Repeat: Pharmaceutical research and development is an imperfect market. Thus, applying the one-size-fits-all perspective that private initiative is always better - nevermind that only one portion of the given market would be free from government influence - is flawed.

If you want private companies to fund blue sky research, one needs to loosen the strict regulatory process for pharmaceutical development. Allow a bit easier testing on humans. A few more deaths.

then you might be able to shrink development timelines and costs - with the ADDITION of blue sky research - to current levels of 10-20 year profit horizons with capital investment of $1 billion per drug.

otherwise, this talk of letting the private sector "take care of" promising blue sky research as a "libertarian solution" is lopsided bunk.

true libertarians are libertarians about everything.

Which is why I can't call myself one of those anymore.

Best quote of the day,"ideological purity is overrated" Thank you RPL. They're bickering over the same ground at Matt Welch's site. What's in the water?

Libertarians are fine as far as that goes. Some complain of a certain smugness which is why I recommend they marinate for at least an hour in olive oil, a sprig or two of fresh terragon and a couple of tablespoons of Grey Poupon. When properly prepared, they taste like chicken.

Why not? After all, we have, "socially liberal, economically conservative" politicians.

Which is why I can't call myself one of those anymore.

Then don't call your self what you are, but don't bundle your political, religious, economic views all under one view. Most people don't believe the same thing for all three, saying your a Republican/Democrat/Socialist/etc and then saying you disagree with this or that means you are only partly that.

I wish American's would quit making blanket statements that make no sense and then have to come up with caveats to explain their real position instead of just saying that from the beginning...

After all, we have, "socially liberal, economically conservative" politicians.

What, two or three?