Freedomain Radio

hargilad:

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.

Yes, I noticed this kind of thinking in many other internet forum boards too and I try to avoid it. I mean, I am open to other explanations, especialy those the most consistent, I just like sometimes share my thoughts which are not always consistent, my bad.

Yep, as long as you throw out the argument from morality there's plenty of good debate about this issue or that or what should or shouldn't be funded.  In a free society those debates would still be going on, except that you and your money would not be involved unless you wanted to.  Just transpose this video to "I think ACME Science Labs should fund research into Flubber and that's why I endorse Smedley McGinty as chairman!"  Everybody's happy, nobody has to get robbed, nobody has to go to jail, it's all good.  Naysayers can still cuss up a storm about how Flubber funding is the dumbest thing ever, but at the end of the day you still get what you want.

nathanm:

Yep, as long as you throw out the argument from morality there's plenty of good debate about this issue or that or what should or shouldn't be funded.

I wish we had that consolation. Unfortunately, we don't have the imaginary "innovation", that the above video was talking about, in government even when ignoring the gun in the room. I can think only of the millions dead from lost innovation of the drug markets to remember that Utilitarian arguments - while immoral - are just as wrong as any other pro-government argument.

Good points as always though, I'm reminded of the court scene from Atlas Shrugged, and the begging that the state and it's lackys do to try and maintain the pretense of voluntary interaction.

Uh oh, tangent time.  

Great video, although it brings up something I have an issue with; the fact that the institutions which we protest so vigorously are ones we ourselves came out of.  That doesn't mean they aren't evil, but it does mean that perhaps not everyone born into such systems are hopeless victims.  For me I don't have to imagine the first example in the video, because I lived it.  But eight years of Catholic school was more or less endured, not celebrated.  Yes, I certainly did believe in God, but I grew out of it.  Kids are like springs, if you don't hammer them down constantly with propaganda they tend to revert back to their original shape. (i.e. not believing in things that aren't real) Sure, one of my classmates ended up a Jesuit priest, but there's plenty of others who came out as regular secular folk.  Religious and\or statist people with even a slight infection of free-thinking available to them are not lost causes.  Take that, some guy who called me cynical. *Nyah!*

Alan Chapman:

I really enjoyed his video on how we can have something from nothing.  This isn't surprising I suppose, but I still don't have a full understanding of why this is the case.  Is it as simple as people like him just don't question what their livelihood depends on?

I want to see someone really confront a prominent scientist like this with good arguments against the state and see how they react.

they react just like anaverage statist - raaaaage. Only with more rationalizing.

Thunderf00t: "...the existence of a state is one of the best ways of reducing violence in societies ever invented." (link)

 If scientists are worried about funding in an stateless society they should think about how much of a burden the government imposes on businesses and individuals who make lots of money.  It used to be that industrialists and such would fund public works but you don't see much of that anymore probably because they are already taxed to death.  The scientists should realize that the process of extracting the money and working it through the "grant" system inevitably reduces the final sum of money that makes it into research.  Why not just go straight to the philanthropists and ask them to fund your research directly?  In a society where there is no government ripping off privates citizens I think a lot of research would get funded.

One thing that I haven't quite come to terms with is our space program.  I know deep down that NASA is a bureaucracy and I know we are being robbed to pay for space exploration, but space is one of those things that almost puts me in a trance.  I know it's wrong to force people to fund NASA but at the same time I love the knowledge that comes out of exploration.  Does anyone else feel this way?  Awhile back I was actually wondering if there's a way people can donate to NASA, but I don't think there is.  Why is it that people can't voluntarily contribute to government programs they actually support?  Is it because that would remove some of the power from the hands of the politicians who control the purse strings?  Does anyone think NASA or something like it would exist in a stateless society?

Shack:

I really enjoyed his video on how we can have something from nothing.

You might enjoy this older thread.

critical thinking doesnt mean for money, as science.

Scientist rely on £$ in no diff a way to workers wanting a home to live in. Passionate, without moral, or without any other skill than science. Ali was great in the ring, if boxing ever be called great, but he couldnt handle life outside it.

Tesla sold out 51% to Rockefeller for equipment. lack luster investment skills startled the family member reporting the subject in their book. apparently Rosker wanted only 49, but Tesla shunned and said 'ave it. Wasnt sure about the accuracy, but the general theme standed.

just an early thought; an excited first post.

 Instead of the bible dictating morality, they have legislation & constitutions. Instead of priests they have politicians. Instead of the church, they have the state.   

Scientists expected Obama administration to be friendlier

Harry Browne used to frequently say that any issue (eg. medical, environmental, financial, scientific, technological, etc.) into which government is permitted to meddle instantly transforms from a market issue into a political issue to be decided by whomever is most successful at exerting political influence, and that will never be the common man. It will always be some special interest group which stands to reap lucrative gain from using government force.

See also The Myth of Science as a Public Good and Science is a Private Good - Or: Why Government Science is Wasteful