[553] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: "Watch me pull laissez-faire capitalism out of this
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sourav K. Mandal)
Sat May 5 18:39:09 2001
Message-Id: <200105052238.SAA06053@dichotomy.dyn.dhs.org>
From: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
Reply-To: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
To: mit-talk@mit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:38:41 -0400
"Alex Coventry <alex_c@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> > [...] Forcing anyone to join particular endeavours is
> > deplorable.
>
> Perhaps. It's the most effective way to achieve certain goals and has
> been crucial to US success, though. *shrug*
In what way? The Vietnam War, which I *think* was the first conflict
to use the draft extensively, was hardly an unmitigated success.
> If you think MIT can fund its current activities from such support, why
> don't you present a budget detailing how?
According to the 1999 MIT Presidential report (http://web.mit.edu/presid
ent/communications/rpt98-99.html), the reliance of MIT's total
operating budget on the fed has decreased from 60-something percent in
1965 to the low 30s today. However, the fed still accounts for some
70% of research, with 20% coming from industry. There are a couple
theories of what's going on:
1. The government is funding basic research which no one else can.
Counterargument: There is a strong tradition of fine basic research in
private industry. In physics, seminal work solid state physics was
done at Bell Labs, and currently firms like IBM and TI are doing
fundamental research for areas such as nanotech. If size is the only
consideration, then there are plenty of companies big enough.
2. The government is providing a _huge_ subsidy to business by funding
research.
Counterargument: They better have, given how much they collect in
corporate taxes! (About $180 billion for FY 1999 alone, according to
the back of my 1040 Telefile form.)
3. The government is funding research that industry would have done
anyway, and everyone benefits.
Counterargument: Then, what's the point? There are inefficiences
associated with this round-about method of funding research, given the
vagaries of tax collection and politics. Also, "everyone benefiting"
is an inherently political question, causing _my_ tax dollars to fund
stuff that does not concern me.
I believe a mixture of 2 & 3 is going on; of course, we can't no for
sure until the fed government surrenders the (around) 19% of the US GDP
it seizes annually (calculated from figures in CIA World Factbook page
for US).
> So you think that, say, the Human Genome Project was irrational? [...]
They _were_ about to be shown up by Celera, though the HGP was using
more precise methods that dovetailed nicely with Celera's "shotgun"
approach. (If anyone needs more detail, I'm the wrong person to ask.)
> [...] but
> it's hard to see how so much valuable data would have ended up in the
> public domain had the job been left to Celera alone.
I would not have supported a _patent_ by Celera on that data, only a
copyright; the genome itself is prior art, after all. With the latter,
any org (perhaps, a non-profit) that was not happy with Celera's
licensing scheme could have made their own investment in mining the
genome data. On average, this kind of private industry solution is
more efficient than government intervention and domination; it is
certainly more ethical.
> I'm also very dubious that a modern pharmaceuticals company would have
> duplicated Watson and Crick's fundamental results had they not been
> funded by Cambridge University. [...]
Maybe, maybe not -- but, are you implying that government funding is
somehow intrinsically superior than private funding? Given how central
DNA is to biology, it seems unlikely that a private lab wouldn't have
stumbled upon it eventually. The method used to discover the helical
structure of DNA, X-ray crystallography, was hardly exotic.
> Unfortunately, ethical questions are not that simple. If ethically
> unacceptable consequences of an intrinsically economic or sociological
> nature could be expected to arise from adherence to a given ethical
> principle, then that principle needs to be compromised to an extent.
In that case, the ethical principle in question would be wrong, since a
body of ethics is singular and universal by definition. You are saying
that if an inconsistency is exposed, the ethical principle needs to be
toned down; I would say it would have to be scrapped altogether.
If you think laissez-faire _necessarily_ leads to unethical actions,
please describe how. A poorly administered laissez-faire government
unable to protect its citizens may still be somewhat better than a
statist government which assaults citizens itself. I guess it comes
down to _how_ your safety is compromised. The US government only takes
your property, unless you use drugs, are of draft age when a war breaks
out, or happen to anger the ATF. ;-)
> [...] I
> don't like paying taxes which fund government programs I have no control
> over, either, but I doubt I'd want to live in any jurisdiction where I
> could safely evade that responsibility. [...]
Nor would I recommend it -- basic physical safety is the top priority.
> [...] If you can name some wealthy,
> developed, stable regions of the world where it's safe and easy to evade
> taxes, I'd be very interested. :)
Due to a cut in its funding, the IRS's ability to enforce its
collection has waned. So, if you have the guts, try it here!
If you don't want to "evade," but have actual zero legal tax liablity,
you have to jump through hoops. You can move to Monaco and meet their
zero-income tax requirements; or, try Caribbean country of Anguilla
(east of Puerto Rico), which IIRC has a tax code but other laws which
hamper the enforcement of that code; and, there are many ways to
drastically reduce your tax liability by residing in one country while
declaring citizenship in another.
Even Hong Kong has an income tax; though, many people pay nothing due
to the 15% cap and generous deductions. Hong Kong, in addition, has a
coporate tax around 16%, and other miscellaneous excise-type taxes.
Also, I can understand if Hong Kong can no longer be called "stable"
due to the Chinese takeover! Switzerland has a fed tax rate no higher
than 11.5%, but the individual cantons are a different story.
The US, as you probably know, had no income tax prior to the civil war,
and no stringently enforced income tax prior to WW I. I am hoping for
this to be the case again (requires a repeal of the 16th amendment),
but I'm realistic. (That would still leave excise and tariff charges.)
Ideally, I myself would not mind paying a flat fee per annum to cover
the services I use (or might use), namely national defense, federal law
enforcement, the courts, legislature, etc. Of course, if I don't pay
the government should not permit itself to attack me; simply, if a
third party were to assault me, I would not rely on the government for
protection.
Cheers,
Sourav
------------------------------------------------------------
Sourav K. Mandal
Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
