Freedomain Radio

(damn I accidentally pushed "back" and deleted my post...)

To keep it short:

Few weeks ago I had so called "enlightenment", because it always amazed me why scientists who use their all rational/critical thinking skills to oppose/deconstruct religion, pseudoscience and other woo-woo become very agressive towards people critizing the state. Especially liberal scientists.

The main reason why is that they are dependent on the state financially. Every scientific research costs an enormous amounts of money and their primary resource is of course the state. Without the state they would have a hard time finding a support. Well, at least that's what they think (I believe) when someone says that "we should abolish the state". And then ad hominem attacks begin ("are you crazy?", "oh, you are libertarian fundie" and so on).

The best example would be PZ Myers, who is the great scientist and promoter of science in general, especially evolutionary theory. But when it comes to politics... he just becomes same old basher of republicans and Faux News. It's kinda boring.

What are your thoughts?

I hate when that happens!  It can be a dangerous thing to compose your post within the forum.

I think they're trapped.  Any industry that has to fight over State funding isn't going to be keen on the idea of NO state funding.  They probably feel that same panic about anarchy as when one's fed up parents demanded that it was high time you got a job and moved out of the house.  "Oh shit, no more free ride!? Noooooo!"

PZ Myers is an a very knowledgeable biologist and I've enjoyed his science lectures and videos. However, he is an economic illiterate and occasionally uses his blog to shill for universal health-care and other leftists causes.

There is a contingent of leftist sycophants who regularly participate on his blog. I tried engaging them in the past, but they regurgitate platitudes such as, "UHC works in France and costs less," and, "Deregulation caused the financial crisis."

They are as ignorant about history and economics as the creationists they ridicule are about science.

It would be interesting to know how many millions of dollars UMM gets in government handouts, and how many millions of dollars the students receive in government grants and loans.

nathanm:

I think they're trapped.

Nah, just wading in a toxic pool of their own corruption, they could climb out at any time.

Some areas of Science that are funded by taxation currently will find no demand in the free market. If you fall in love with the study of butterfly mating rituals and realize that few others give a shit, then you have a strong incentive to ignore the the fact that the guy who signs your paychecks has a pen in one one hand and a gun in the other, pointed toward your fellow citizens. (The gun, that is, not the pen...)

There certainly is this myth as the state as a pusher of big science and innovation, while the opposite is generally true. If you haven't seen it already:

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/p/21161/167035.aspx#167035

One advantage public intitutions may have had with they were less concered about copyright and more open about discoveries.

But I think that removing IP law will actually have the effect of increasing the demand and prestige of scientists, first because less will need to be spent for lawyers and litigation and more focus will be placed on continual product improvement rather than relying on monopoly status gained by patents.

WorBlux, thanks for a video. Will check it out soon. 

I am about the same opinion, that a state is redundant when it comes to pushing "a big science". With a free market society there would be much more competition. Though, I also agree with hkw, that some areas of science will find no demand.

hkw:

Some areas of Science that are funded by taxation currently will find no demand in the free market. If you fall in love with the study of butterfly mating rituals and realize that few others give a shit, then you have a strong incentive to ignore the the fact that the guy who signs your paychecks has a pen in one one hand and a gun in the other, pointed toward your fellow citizens. (The gun, that is, not the pen...)

And that's the great thing about the free market.  Even though things like butterfly mating will not get funded by private companies, with the vast increase in wealth that would come about in 10+ years, people who wanted to study such things would be more likely to have the financial means to do so themselves.

There are a few great arguments to bring to bear when you talk to statists that say X will not be funded without the state.

The first, and my favorite to bring out because of the reaction it gets is "So what?".

I usually follow by saying that if that is the case you have been OUTVOTED on the marketplace of dollars and ideas. If they are comitted to democracy and people would not voluntarily fund their activities or an activity they support, then how democratic is it to force this funding? If they really want something that would not be funded voluntarily to be funded by the state then logically they must advocate dictatorship.

Its also important to point out that the state does not create the wealth they redistribute. So whatever wealth goes into an obscure area of science must come from somewhere. The existence of the state does not add wealth to the pot that can be channelled into the activity they like, so whatever they want must come at the expense of things others want, and that they would pay for voluntarily.

One thing statists often say then is "There are some things more important than money". Thats a real howler, and you can point this out, considering their gripe was about money in the first place. If its really more important, why don't people do it for free? Why don't they do it for free?

I usually do not like to make the argument about the increase in wealth that the free market would create leading to all types of possibilities unitl later. I feel that making this argument early legitimizes their desire for whatever program or whatever they are advocating and I think the "so what" argument shakes this confidence. Statists are used to people catering to the legitimacy of their desire for whatever they advocate, and to refuse to do this puts them on the defensive in the argument.

I think also they've just replaced god with the state.  One fiction for another.

Thunderfoot (the creator of the excellent "Why do people laugh at creationists" series) did a youtube video about why we need the State, the first thing we need it for?  Monetary stabliity. 

Livemike:

Thunderfoot (the creator of the excellent "Why do people laugh at creationists" series) did a youtube video about why we need the State, the first thing we need it for?  Monetary stabliity. 

I unsubscribed from him sometime after his videos criticising Ron Paul (with some anecdote about the Health Department being necessary otherwise airlines wouldn't bother with hygeine - despite his anecdote being that they weren't even under it's control!) and some video about how government funding science is so great (on account of how my life is so much better because some guy stood on the moon).

"Scientists" don't just oppose anarchism, they oppose any kind of reduction of the size of evil...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7357599/Stephen-Hawking-considers-leaving-Britain-over-university-cuts.html

MPeino:

The first, and my favorite to bring out because of the reaction it gets is "So what?".

Ha, I love saying that!

I nominate it for the Big Philosophical Question category!

MaikUniversum:

(damn I accidentally pushed "back" and deleted my post...)

To keep it short:

Few weeks ago I had so called "enlightenment", because it always amazed me why scientists who use their all rational/critical thinking skills to oppose/deconstruct religion, pseudoscience and other woo-woo become very agressive towards people critizing the state. Especially liberal scientists.

The main reason why is that they are dependent on the state financially. Every scientific research costs an enormous amounts of money and their primary resource is of course the state. Without the state they would have a hard time finding a support. Well, at least that's what they think (I believe) when someone says that "we should abolish the state". And then ad hominem attacks begin ("are you crazy?", "oh, you are libertarian fundie" and so on).

The best example would be PZ Myers, who is the great scientist and promoter of science in general, especially evolutionary theory. But when it comes to politics... he just becomes same old basher of republicans and Faux News. It's kinda boring.

What are your thoughts?

This idea was articulated before by stef and while it looks like a nice explanation on the surface I don't buy into it.

While it's true that lots of scientists are depended on the state for their entire career, I think you would find out that most scientists that work in the private sector would oppose anarchy also just as other people from the private sector that are not scientists. 

I get the feeling sometime that we at FDR think that we are the only people in the world who know how to use reason and evidence, and that reason and evidence would inevitably lead to acceptation of our ideas but thats probably not a reality. In Israel we have lots of very distinguished world class scientists (including Nobel prize winners) that are also religious and statists , I cannot claim about them that they are don't know how to use reason and evidence or they are shaping their world view in accordance with just their narrow economical interests.

What i think i want to say, is that no sane person thinks that the state is the best concept in the world or that what we have today is even a good Idea... nobody, including the scientists... most serious people that I speak with look at the state as a better mechanism than former kingdoms or tribes or whatever there was before and hoping that future forms of organization would be even better - that having been said, anarcho-capitalism is just another option and if enough people would be convinced that this is the right way to go, that is what we are going to have. I just can't justify saying to everyone that is not convinced that our solution is the best way to go that he is illogical\ superstitious\violent\statist zombie or whatever.

Thunderf00t also made a video in which he blamed the free-market for slavery.