Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
Monetary incentive exists one way or the other regardless of whether the government is the one doling out the money, the difference is that governments lack the accountability for such spending. Private individuals have to be accountable for their costs or they will go bankrupt. Do you not think that people who use government aid/grants for research are incentivized by those grants?
Bankruptcy is not an insurance against bad investments. Just like the possibility of being voted out of office isn't an insurance against bad investments. A small government society could be poorly implemented and utilized just like a large government society. You've done little to show that one is better than the other. Is our current system working perfectly now? No. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this chat. But you have to make a pretty strong case if you want it to be scrapped and replaced instead of just tweaked.


This is true, but less true than would be the case if the money was provided voluntary by individuals or corporations, who again, have to be held accountable for that money. The Wire and Treme illustrate quite well the problem of how government decides to allocate money and aid resources, despite David Simon being pretty much a liberal.
They illustrate problems with our current system. You have inferred that these problems, to the extent that they are present, are inherent. That's on you to prove that.



No, probably the researchers are as conscientious as one can be, given the sometimes warped incentive structure inherent in government aid. I'm more worried about a government's (who has basically no expertise on the intricacies of bacteriology) lack of ability to determine the value of what it's paying for, and thus, propensity to overpay on dead end projects, or underpay and prematurely cancel ones with promise.
Maybe I missed it, but I'm pretty sure you never addressed the point brought up, up thread. There are threats which are so great and nearly insurmountable that the investment needed to mitigate the risk would be so large, and when it comes time to employ the fruits, the consequence of not doing so would be so dire that profit is no longer a concern. A few examples were given: a plague which would only require a one time inoculation, or a mass extinction capable asteroid.

As well, you seem ignorant to the benefits of science for the sake of science. NASA is a perfect example of this. Without NASA, which in many ways has simply set out to achieve for the sake of achieving, our aerospace industry would be decades behind where it is. Pretty much every industry would have suffered without NASA. The discoveries and advances made while trying to push the boundaries of our knowledge and ability are endless and priceless. Entire industries have sprung up around some of these developments. But it's not an easily tallied sum, so NASA is treated as frivolous government spending.

I'm not saying its pure retard incompetence that leads governments to make mistakes like this, its actually quite natural for them to be so clueless on such esoteric subjects. The problem is that governments presume to know whats best in every situation, in a world rich with intricacy.
You have presumed to know that all governments have and will always presume to know what's best in every situation, in a world rich with governments and possible governments.

Furthermore you presume that the free market knows what's best in every situation.

Could you please stop arguing with me like I'm your 12 year old little brother? It's mildly infuriating.
I guess I'm just disappointed that you've adopted and are standing on this simplistic ideology.