The Myth of Science as a Public Good (by Terence Kealey)

[Justajawnie]

Well it is in the constitution... article 1 section 8. To promote science.

[Eldeecue]

Someone explain to me how the voyager missions would have gotten done by a private entities.

Also explain to me how _anything_ that requires research that spans several lifetimes would _ever_ get funded.

Christ, you people are _worse_ than the Creationists.

[joaophilippe]

In principle, the whole idea of science being financed only by voluntary/private investment is wonderful. But there are the practical problems I mentioned before. Unfortunately, not all research is attractive to private investors, specially pure research, and is perfectly possible that some of this non-attractive research may be very important to do.

[joaophilippe]

it's very easy to find people and/or institutions interested in funding applied research, but the same isn't true for pure research. What private enterprise would have interest in financing research in paleontology or cosmology, for example? It's hard to convince people to fund research that has no obvious and predictable gain, only the prospect of future one.

I think the role of government is acting where private enterprise don't have neither the resorces or willingness to do something.

[Nielsio]

@joaophilippe If you can't find a voluntary way of funding something, then why should it be done? If you can't find people to fund your paleontology research, then isn't it just a hobby then?

[Doublicon]

@joaophilippe How do you decide which science deserves the most attention at an any given time. Here's my fictious and extreme example. Imagine if 13th century scientists started research on building a rocket to the moon. It could be easily argued that, given at that point in time, that would be an endeavor which isn't going to see immediate benefits and that those resources were best allocated elsewhere. Politically-charged research can arguably be mis-allocated research.

[Illyrien]

@joaophilippe

Who would fun cosmology? How about charitable organisation, foundations set up to support science, enthusiasts... who know. Perhaps universities would feel like reserving some of their funds fore pure research.

[illoominate]

I highly recommend Mr. Kealy's book "The Economic Laws of Scientific Research". Look it up on Amazon.

[BelleAndTheBoy]

Pretty great stuff, very interesting.

[anonynomnomnom]

this man makes entirely too much sense

[plp92109]

im still waiting for the the Anti patent believers to invest billions in drug research and the FDA approval process as well as the risks of losing billions in lawsuits if even after FDA approval the drug you develop turns out to have some rare but bad side effects, then not patent it & allow any Pharmacuetical CO to come along, copy the formula & sell it 4 way less because they did not incur any of the costs to develop it. BTW patents are not required, don't use if U don't like!

[Illyrien]

@plp92109

This is all in the book Against intellectual Monopoly (available free online, naturally).

Just google "Against Intellectual Monopoly", its the top hit, or atleast was the list time I looked for it.

[THEGREGDREW]

@plp92109

You say patents are not required, although this is complete rubbish under the current regime. If you don't patent your work in the current environment you can be kept from using your own discoveries! Patents are grants of monopoly, stopping the incentive for more innovation. Listen to what this guy says about the Right brothers, they totally abandoned science and became professional lawyers. If you want to stifle production (making everyone poorer) patents are the way to do it.

[jedfa987]

@plp92109 Did you just not bother watching the video. You know where this exact issue is raised and addressed.

[TheLegalImmigrant05]

@plp92109 "BTW patents are not required, don't use if U don't like" sYe, and then someone else can patent your invention and lock you out of using it.

[canaan1967]

Scientific research is developed within specific historical contexts by very powerful interests that gain great financial advantage from it's development. These interests are private ones. The Government or State exists to further the interests of private investors and corporations i.e Biotech firms conducting research in Universities. US and UK governments serve not the public but private interests. Scientific research is profoundly private.

An inestimably misguided theory

[canaan1967]

@canaan1967

The only thing public about Scientific research it as that tax payers have to fund these private researchers in universities like Mr. Kealy's.

[Misterunnamed]

Wow, watching this, it felt like someone was squeezing the intelligence out of my head. Like, and almost palpable experience.

[Th3Minx]

4:24

His argument seems to be that since GDP growth is linear, public funding of science didn't help scientific advance. Only problem with that argument is that GDP real growth =/= scientific advance.

[Nielsio]

Yeah, he does make more fundamental/logical arguments but those come later.

[dumky]

@Th3Minx That's correct, but the claim of those advocating public funding of R&D is that it is key to long-term growth. So you'd hope or expect to see some effect...

[decentralimprov]

@Th3Minx his point was public R&D crowds out private R&D by 125%. that makes sense. you could make $1 trillion worth of bombs to sit in storage inflating your GDP, but have a poorer nation because of it... with scientists spending energy doing something that may never be used rather than something productive.

[mlokos2]

@Th3Minx also, 2% per year means it's not linear, but exponential. Quite embarassing for a guy like this to say that.

[MaikUniversum]

from 44:00 brilliant :)

[20000miles]

The discussion of patents in pharmaceuticals comes late in this discussion. Boldrin and Levine come to different conclusions regarding pharma patents, namely:

-pharma industries developed more strongly in country with weak patent laws

- most groundbreaking developments were made without the desire to patent them

-introducing patents didn't result in an explosion of new drugs

This is all in the book Against intellectual Monopoly (available free online, naturally).

Great talk, btw!

[frindo11]

Well I guess the point I'm making is that property rights are important and help solve conflicts, they shouldn't be absolute like every other right actually. Even the right to live of another man may be violated in acordance with the law by self defence for example

[frindo11]

So I don't really know where I'm going with this but alternative one is that the road is built and the (former) owner sues the people for damges(the road) to his property, which he will get. The other alternative is he successfully defends his property by force, which will lead to people dying since their alternative is allready starvation. Not a diserable outcome but there are a huge number of "if"s in it.

[frindo11]

We now have to asume that the man is irrational and values his property higher than several thousand people value their very lifes and still refuses the money that is being offered by them(which undoubtly is higher than the usual market price). If this case occurs what is most likely to happen is there some form of dispute about the land. Now conflict is costly and most likely all other forms of negotiation have failed before that.

[frindo11]

About the last point in the discussion about the single man not wanting to sell his land and then a thousand people die of hunger and a thousand people die of thirst because no road can be built through his property. Now lets asume the man really owns all the property surrounding the area and no other form of transport is availible.

[wildboy789789]

if a fascit party supported science and anti-violence i would change my way of life to be a fascist

thats how important those 2 veiws are to me

im a capitalist by the way

[Nielsio]

Political parties generally promise things that people like to hear, but people who seek power are ultimately not interested in peaceful cooperation. So my advice would be to not be fooled.

[wildboy789789]

true, but some good people seek power to help others

they just arnt as determined as the angry ones

[Nielsio]

You can't help people through power. You can only forego people's self-determination through power.

"Progress cannot be organized"

-Ludwig von Mises

[wildboy789789]

so anarchy would be the most productive?

[Chainedorlo]

Based on private property rights and non-aggression, absolutely.

[china416]

not necessarily anarchy per say, but most of our productivity have been in response to centralization or organizational regiments using coercive powers to try and control populaces.

In a sense I guess it is an egoist conception of anarchy... guess it depends on how wide of a scope of a definition you are willing to use for the concept of anarchy.

[wildboy789789]

im a left winger and im SO against anarchy... it sounds great but here is what happens

gangs or groups take over by force then you have a whole bunch of small areas owned by dictator thugs

limited government is a good way to live

but a huge uncorrupt government would be the best (democracy rule with paper votes instead of representatives)

[rancegt]

@wildboy789789

Consider the arguments for Anarcho-Capitalism in the American West. They are quite compelling. However, I believe in government for the purpose of protecting individual rights. Taking my money under threat of violence to fund Nobel prize winning research does not protect anyone's rights. Of much less value is the drivel that comes from most government funded research.

[wildboy789789]

@rancegt about a year ago when i left that comment i was just getting into politics... now im a democratic socialist... and government shouldent nessasarilly do the research (because they hide all the findings), but to have christian corporations running free and banning any science that changes their buisness isnt good either... the government should fund private and public research... if the government is a real democracy with socialist controls on corporations then big government is good

[baihbalm]

@wildboy789789 yes, but you'd still have to deal with the element of violence... that's where government comes in. Protecting US citizen liberties. How it grew to what it is now is history.

[wildboy789789]

@baihbalm im not an anarchist lol... im very pro-democracy and i support the democratic party... i acctually see anarchy as gang control which leads to a dictatorship, which is why i hate antigovernment republicans... my comment was being sarcastic but i guess 19 anarchist idiots gave me a thumbs up, thinking i was one of them lol

[baihbalm]

@wildboy789789 I'm not either, it's obvious. Anarchy would be highly productive yet cease to be due to the violent elements in society (to either raid/steal or establish and enforce monopolies). Therefore government will always be required as long as humans continue this trend of violence. So you would substitute mob rule for gang rule? Why not stick with a constitutional republic?

[twk373]

The assumption that the government can change the character of the people through laws and police is false. If the people believe violence is okay, the country will be violent, whatever the government does. If the people believe violence is wrong, removing the government will not magically change their morals. Consider Prohibition and the drug war as examples. Prohibition was a colossal failure, and the drug war continues to be one. Why? Because government cannot change the people's morality.

[twk373]

With a moral population, anarchy would not result in mob rule, nor would it result in everyone abandoning their morality.

[wildboy789789]

@baihbalm republics can change from democratic to dictatorial very fast... you can elect people who want everyone to vote, and you can elect people who make it harder to vote... im totally fine with the republican system of electiong representatives, but im in favor of a highly democratic system where politicians are held accountable for their actions... democrats have the oldest political party in the united states, we are a constitutional republic, but constitutions are subject to change

[Audiofalcon7]

@wildboy789789 As long as you have an institution that can't be disavowed, you will have corruption, you will have abuse of power, and you will have a growth. Every system to limit government or keep them held accountable has failed miserably. By its fundamental structure, political systems are institutions that can inflict sanctions and stop sanctions from being inflicted without any form of being disavowed. An increasing amount of consent is only another method to legitimize this.

[Audiofalcon7]

@wildboy789789 All forms of Democratic Socialism, as well, have failed, and direct democratic methods can easily get a tyrant than anything else. All forms of politics are bound to be dictatorial very fast. The only way to truly place politicians - or rather, any political institution - to be accountable is to place it on the market like any other good and service; in other words, the production of security should be placed on the market. Through economic law and customary jurisprudence do......

[Audiofalcon7]

@wildboy789789 the people have a means to disavow painful, inefficient, tyrannical, costly, or unnecessary producers of security in favor of more efficient producers of security with better quality. Anarchism is not gang rule; anarchism recognizes that social order is foundational for politics to even exist, and ab initio there is no need for politics due to anthropological, historical, neuroscientific, social scientific, and logical facts. There is no valid justification for politics in facts.

[wildboy789789]

@Audiofalcon7 heres the plain truth... if the government didnt exist id set up a radical democracy where everyone votes, then id get a gang of about 6 of my friends with guns to hyjack a grocery store, we would let people in if they joined the community... then when your family needs food the only way youll get it is by growing it yourself, or joing my democratic civilization... who knows, maybe where you live someone will start a communist or fascist upriseing... thats anarchy

[Audiofalcon7]

@wildboy789789 Are you trolling? Are you seriously going to tell me that the only reason you're not putting your friends, family, and others in harm way is because of a simple retarded statute? Do you not understand where the basis of morality stems from? Of course, wildboy, you simply become a nihilist due to the fact that there is no State. That is not plain truth, that is you thinking you have the balls to do that when you don't realize your 6 friends would easily get pwned by the grocery's

[Audiofalcon7]

@wildboy789789 security system and the arbitration they have to settle disputes. You honestly think that the State is the only provider of security? It's not, and your 6 friends will come to realize that quick when you hear an alarm, see the store owner pull a shotgun, and see other people not willing to participate you harming someone's life. Just because YOU become a nihilist because a State doesn't exist, doesn't mean everyone else will. Your civilization won't happen because of 6 idiots.

[wildboy789789]

@Audiofalcon7 ok, the mexican mafia brings 200 people to your neighborhood and ask everyone to give up valueable possesions and food or you and your family dies... what now tough guy, you gonna defend your home with a gun LOL... you antigovernment fools are so unmature, move to somalia, if you can survive in their anarchy as a pirate then ill belive you can survive american anarchy... somalia has anarchy right now, and pirates come and steal your stuff, its a shit hole country

[Audiofalcon7]

@wildboy789789 Mexican mafias can only exist through prohibition of a good which constricts supply and leaves demand to increase so high people are willing to kill for drugs. Mafias can't exist without prohibition; they never did until prohibition started. Without prohibition (i.e. without a State), mafias like that won't exist. Many of those people don't want to kill, but they need money - some steal for fun, but more steal to eat. They are suffering in Mexico due to socialism and corporatism.

[Audiofalcon7]

@wildboy789789 Next, Somalia is a basket case, whom, as the U.N. factbook proves, had less killing and economic improvement when they went into anarchism in the first 1-3 years. However, Somalia became a basketcase due to them being invaded and bombed by the U.S. and plethora of other countries around them. Even through all these bombings, however, Somalia has yet to be fully conquered and the outskirts of Mogadishnu is actually very peaceful compared to the Mogadishnu itself which is invaded.

[joepeeler34]

@Audiofalcon7 You are forgetting the communist government in Somalia that almost completely destroyed what little capital and wealth they possessed. They were starting from ground-zero. Even if everything went perfectly, they would be at a subsistence level for generations. It takes time to build up that intellectual and material capital stock.

[Eldeecue]

@joepeeler34

I still think it's a good idea for you to move there, though. And for all libertarians to move there, really.

No internet over there. No more Ron Paul spam, no more Austrian School of Dipshit Economics Spam.

You'd be helping to build a better world by doing so....please, consider it. If not for me, than for my children, and my children's children.

[joepeeler34]

@Eldeecue I think it's a good idea for you to move to N. Korea or Cuba because that is the result of your ideas when taking to its logical conclusion.

Why do you think govt. creates wealth? It can certainly destroy.

As I stated earlier, the Somalian economy was reduced to subsistence by a communist govt.

Do you imagine that if your ideas were put in place at a subsistence level that it wouldn't take many generations to rise above it?

[joepeeler34]

@Eldeecue The closest approximation in the 20th century of our ideas was in Hong Kong. How did that speck on the map, with almost no natural resources, achieve such a high standard of living compared to its neighbors with a mostly free market in place?

Our ideas, with some deviations, was also in place in the 19th-early 20th century here. Our ancestors went from subsistence level to wealthies in world during that short period. How?

[joepeeler34]

@Eldeecue The system that we have now is a progressive-corporatist-social­ist hybrid. It was largely erected during the Progressive/New Deal era. Both parties have expanded on that structure ever since. It's taken decades to dissipate much of the capital and wealth. The current system is much closer to your ideas than mine. Observe the results.

Internet? Ha! Many countries with heavily taxed, regulated, controlled economies didn't have that either. Most of those no longer exist.

[Audiofalcon7]

@baihbalm Human beings are not naturally violent, for one. You can't have a political institution without the presupposition of an existing order. Order does not come FROM politics, a type of order, using legitimacy, consent, and on rare occasion repression is what forms politics. Society comes before politics - if human beings are so violent, then politics could not sustain itself, especially on a large scale. Governments were never necessary; they came through deception that we don't have now.

[baihbalm]

@Audiofalcon7 Human being are not naturally violent? I lost you there. I am well aware our current lifestyles are a far cry from where man was even a mere 500 years ago, yet man has not even come close to living without complete and total dependence on nature, and probably never will in my lifetime. Perhaps my definition of nature is different. What do you consider nature? The trees, bees, whales and snails? What about the rocks, air, sand, space and time?

[wildboy789789]

@Nielsio acctually obama is helping people... 2 years ago i said i was a capitalist lol, im now a democratic socialist and i plan to stay that way... have you changed any of your views?

[joepeeler34]

@wildboy789789 A fascist party abrogates natural rights by definition. A state that initiates force, initiated violence. Subsidies are taken by force and given to others. They are taken with the threat of force being implicit.

The freer a society and a market, the more scientific advancement.

[lexave]

(continuing)

Just one other point: his comparison of Science with practicing Law is completely disingenuous. The Law itself is of course in the public, while practicing law is a profession because of the skills demanded. Whether or not it is a desirable state of affairs, the latter does not negate the former.

[lexave]

His general points are well taken, and his pointing out of the OECD findings are rather thought provoking. However, his ridicule of Einstein's findings as public good is embarrassing. 1. His papers (e.g. of 1905) are clearly written, and most freshmen physicists would be able to understand the reasoning therein. 2. At least two of his three discoveries that year could never have been done under industrial R&D, ironically. 3. One doesn't have to understand his papers to get the consequences.

[pablojovany]

i think he's got a point with the science as a public good but that's because we live in monetary system but what if we didn't have a monetary system?

[Kreadus005]

He lost me at comparing global warming to eugenics.

[Nielsio]

Not me.

[Kreadus005]

Don't get me wrong, I liked his tentative stance on the uncertainty of the temperature data, but I think thats a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

One is a scientific reality; that if you pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere, things get hot. The other was some kind of human political elitism.

I liked the main topic about science as a hard-to-reproduce good, making its behavior more akin to a private good. And I liked the follow up concerning investor's rights, pharmacuticals, and the like

[podrag]

Scientific reality? Sorry, I'm a professional engineer and there's no scientific evidence for that. Do you have another example?

CO2 in a box with no other determining factors, then yes up to the point of saturation. That's it though I'm afraid.

[lukeev]

Great video - thanks for upping.

[lukeev]

Fantastic stuff, just finished this after a second watch. Although the last 5 mins are pretty excruciating which is a shame, as he wriggles around a vague minarchist position and makes some absurd arguments around property rights after some excellent student questions. Again, thanks for the upload.

[Nielsio]

Yeah, I'm planning on making a video response to this and address some issues: the 'sovereign' thing, the property rights issue, the Ford case and the pharmaceutical industry.

[17Spartacus76]

Thanks for tying this all into one video. I hate having to make playlists.