Getting slightly back on topic . . . As I said, I support a pragmatic
hybrid economy, with some elements of socialism for things like fire
departments, healthcare, and public schools, because they do not fit
the normal rules of economics well; i.e., little kids need to go to
school and they are not informed consumers.
I also support government-sponsored R&D, and fundamental research.
This means we must have oversight from Washington agencies such as
the DoE, the NIH and the NSF. You can't just hand out money to
scientists and let them go off and spend it anyway they like. We only
do this for bankers and stock market manipulators who have a proven
track record of losing trillions of dollars in return for nothing.
HOWEVER, granted all of that, we must limit the power that leading
individuals have over institutions and decisions. In economics we
must have more free-market competition. In science we must give
low-level and young researchers more autonomy. There has to be
private funding for research, or public funding with fewer strings
attached. Since anyone can be wrong, we have to prevent people who
make mistakes from clobbering the whole system. The same goes for
people who are stupid or corrupt. We have to limit their power to
cause damage. That is the libertarian principle. I do not think much
of libertarianism but I agree with them about this.
That does not mean we should not have any central planning or
research led and micro-managed by Washington. It means that we should
not allow all research to be dictated by Washington, with no other
sources of funding, and no way for a young researcher to overrule the
old fogeys.
- Jed
- [Vo]:Socialist centrally planned science sure don't work Jed Rothwell
-
