Funding for R&D in the US

@spruce112358 said
Well, for one, the Constitution doesn't list all our rights yet. For example, the explicit right to privacy and the right to a balanced government budget which results in a non-fiat, non-inflating currency. Those rights aren't in the Constitution. Yet. 😆

But quibbles aside - yes. Government doesn't make money - it lays taxes. Taxes infringe on our right to property. ...[text shortened]... approve of it. Creating more lesbian-owned gas stations, say. Or supporting the price of cheese. 😆

Are you arguing that r&d should not be a government expenditure?

@wildgrass said
Are you arguing that r&d should not be a government expenditure?

If it is R&D aiming at protecting all our rights equally then it's fine - like with the defense example. 😆

But I don't think we should skip a step. We should make the rational argument.

@spruce112358 said
Well, for one, the Constitution doesn't list all our rights yet. For example, the explicit right to privacy and the right to a balanced government budget which results in a non-fiat, non-inflating currency. Those rights aren't in the Constitution. Yet. 😆

But quibbles aside - yes. Government doesn't make money - it lays taxes. Taxes infringe on our right to property. ...[text shortened]... approve of it. Creating more lesbian-owned gas stations, say. Or supporting the price of cheese. 😆

How can there be a "right to property" when in the Natural State private property didn't exist? You have no right not to be taxed unless the amount would make you unable to survive.

The economic system in the US exists because the majority consent to it, but that does not create any "right" to withhold contributions to societal goals the majority find desirable. Democratic institutions are meaningless otherwise.

EDIT: Of course, I am relying on the difference between personal v. private property and not denying that there may be limitations on taxation based on adherence to other rights like equal treatment.

@no1marauder said
How can there be a "right to property" when in the Natural State private property didn't exist? You have no right not to be taxed unless the amount would make you unable to survive.

The economic system in the US exists because the majority consent to it, but that does not create any "right" to withhold contributions to societal goals the majority find desirable. Demo ...[text shortened]... g that there may be limitations on taxation based on adherence to other rights like equal treatment.

Oh I think there is a ‘Natural Right’ to property. Even animals recognize the right to property: the leopard owns its kill, bears and wolves guard their territories, the bull elk ‘owns’ his harem, monkeys run off with ‘their’ food as others try to take it. Humans with our opposable thumbs started making tools, and it didn’t take long for people to understand that this is MY stone axe because I made it. Same as a lion recognizes that is HIS impala. 😆

The right to property we recognize is a useful detente to stop the endless stealing and fighting - which wastes the time of both thief and the guard and puts both at risk. Recognizing mutual property rights therefore has evolutionary advantage. 😆

@spruce112358 said
Oh I think there is a ‘Natural Right’ to property. Even animals recognize the right to property: the leopard owns its kill, bears and wolves guard their territories, the bull elk ‘owns’ his harem, monkeys run off with ‘their’ food as others try to take it. Humans with our opposable thumbs started making tools, and it didn’t take long for people to understand that this is ...[text shortened]... d and puts both at risk. Recognizing mutual property rights therefore has evolutionary advantage. 😆

None of that has anything to do with taxation of arbitrarily recognized currencies in order to fund societal goals accepted by the majority. Humans have always existed in groups and always have recognized that the sharing of resources within the group are essential to individual and group survival.

There is no "right" not to do so.

@spruce112358 said
If it is R&D aiming at protecting all our rights equally then it's fine - like with the defense example. 😆

But I don't think we should skip a step. We should make the rational argument.

The rational argument has been clearly established. Actually, defense is a squishier one because the beneficiaries are the ones with the most stuff ergo the most to lose.

It's new knowledge that is broadly important for everyone. Not the potential use of said knowledge, which is fundamentally unknowable until after the research has been done...

Economists have long recognized this. In 1959, RAND economist Dick Nelson formalized the logic: firms rationally underinvest in upstream science because they capture only a sliver of the returns. The rest accrues to society at large. These are the “social returns” that make public R&D so valuable — and so are under-provided in a pure market system.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndrake/2025/05/19/trumps-nih-and-nsf-cuts-could-cost-the-us-economy-10-billion-annually/

@no1marauder said
None of that has anything to do with taxation of arbitrarily recognized currencies in order to fund societal goals accepted by the majority. Humans have always existed in groups and always have recognized that the sharing of resources within the group are essential to individual and group survival.

There is no "right" not to do so.

Interesting that you have to qualify your statements as "within the group" as if so-called natural rights wouldn't apply to other tribes.

@wildgrass said
Interesting that you have to qualify your statements as "within the group" as if so-called natural rights wouldn't apply to other tribes.

What a bizarre misinterpretation. Nothing I have ever stated says that Natural Rights are dependent on inclusion in Group A as compared to Group B.

You are badly missing the point of this discussion which is about obligations to the society you belong to not your individual Natural Rights.

EDIT: In political philosophy, this would be considered part of "Social Contract Theory".

@no1marauder said
What a bizarre misinterpretation. Nothing I have ever stated says that Natural Rights are dependent on inclusion in Group A as compared to Group B.

You are badly missing the point of this discussion which is about obligations to the society you belong to not your individual Natural Rights.

EDIT: In political philosophy, this would be considered part of "Social Contract Theory".

Then why write "within the group" if it's unnecessary for your point?

@wildgrass said
The rational argument has been clearly established. Actually, defense is a squishier one because the beneficiaries are the ones with the most stuff ergo the most to lose.

It's new knowledge that is broadly important for everyone. Not the potential use of said knowledge, which is fundamentally unknowable until after the research has been done...
[quote]Economists have lo ...[text shortened]... om/sites/johndrake/2025/05/19/trumps-nih-and-nsf-cuts-could-cost-the-us-economy-10-billion-annually/

Well, since Bayh-Dole 1980, government funded research can be patented by the university, business, or non-profit and then be sold off to a large company for pretty big bucks. 😆

If that discovery results in a drug, the public then has the 'privilege' of paying a high price for it for 10-15 years until it goes off patent. 😆

Before that, government funded research led to government-held patents, but only 5% were ever developed - naturally. Why would government be good at developing products?

I think gummint can step aside and let philanthropists and the companies themselves work this out. Gummint can spend the money saved protecting our rights with better justice, say. There is no 'right to abstract knowledge' per se. 😆

@wildgrass said
The best strategy for determining who gets funding is for agencies to set clear priorities, request grant applications, and have those applications reviewed by other scientists. The multi-layer review process will weed out both bad science and science that doesn't jive with government priorities.

The NIH and NSF are shining examples of how it should work. Obviously there ...[text shortened]... ernment-funded R&D, our technology sector in the US becomes Europe - boring, uncreative milquetoast.

Is that what is really happening though?

https://www.newsweek.com/ivanka-trump-usaid-money-white-house-event-2027132

"Without government-funded R&D, our technology sector in the US becomes Europe - boring, uncreative milquetoast."

That is why we have DARPA. Much of what they do is top secret though. Internet technology was top secret at first. Then they released it later.