<i>Well, how about a few examples?</i>
I could counter with examples of governement waste, or with examples of countless corrupt governements that come to power...I won't. This is not a game where the person with the most examples wins.
Fundamentally, trying to create a government or system that is contrary to human nature to act in their own self interest just doesn't work - they just work within that system instead to the same end. When you allow people to work in their own self interest and incent them to do so to, they can address things like research, and they do.
Not sure if you were able to read some of my previous posts or not, but ultimatly when it is "government" research, the people who decide who the money goes to still act in their own self interest and not in the interest of the best research or best science. Gosh, I WISH that we had some trustworthy politicians to run things. Ideas like yours would be very nice and we could really get some things done. Unfortunitly, the fellows who hold the purse strings are a band of thieves.
The only thing I can trust is if I tell someone with money that a potential new branch of science out there can help millions of people, that person will take their money and invest it in those that use their resources most efficently so that they maximize return. They worked in their own self interest, but also made something that millions can benefit from.
As to sitting back and dying waiting for market forces to act? The market is the most responsive system on earth when unencumbered. Some things are popular because they give hope, but not because they have actual science. Popular does not equal good science. Now I certainly hope that stem cells heal all that ail us, but I am not close enough to know if they will ultimatly pay off. Money will want to be first to market and chase good (not popular) science. A popularity contest will take years to brew in the media and longer to move a government. In short, money will chase good science faster than government can with better results.
Quote:
|
Does it not occur to you that, if you were so unfortunate to have to use a cure "patented" by a private company, you may actually end up paying MORE than the miniscule amount of your taxes that go towards government grants?
|
I will happily pay for a cure and hope that the company makes money from me. This way they can have the resources for new research. Their investors get a return on their investment, making it attractive for others and so they get exponentally MORE money for research because they were successful and therefore have proven that they have the ability to do inovative things to find new cures. They had to chase down thousands of substances that failed before finding a cure and next time they can be even broader. Since they have a lot of resources, they can attract the best minds rather than have them go into other fields. Neato! The best folks are now able to be compensated for being innovative, creative and saving lives. I sure like that as well. To protect all that investment and be sure that the company gets a return on all that, we grant them a patent so that they will be incented to act this way again.
If I didn't have to pay 70%+ of my income before doing so, it would be all the better. The taxes I pay are in no way miniscule. It would be gratifying if the money I spent on taxes actually got to some of these sources. In reality, about one dollar in ten actually gets spent on any of these things. Most gets spent on servicing the debt that that these fools have run up, "running" the goverment, and invading other countries to spread the world bank aka democracy.