[566] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: MIT & private research funding (happy, Wally? :-)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sourav K. Mandal)
Mon May 7 00:27:17 2001
Message-Id: <200105070426.AAA07167@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: Mon, 07 May 2001 00:26:51 -0400
"Alex Coventry <alex_c@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> If we stipulate for a moment that government coordination of some
> endeavours dramatically improves US society overall, then yes, I think
> forcing malcontents into line is a lesser evil than letting the US turn
> into a larger-than-life version of, say, the Ivory Coast.
Are you contending that warring anarchy rises along with personal
freedom? That's a simplistic view of liberty. By that reasoning, Hong
Kong (pre-takeover) and USA prior to the 20th century must've been hell
holes, with people unable to protect their persons or property. In
reality, corruption is the major predictor of political unrest; the
USSR stuck around as long as it did with its central because corruption
was limited -- quite impressive, really.
> [...] I was friends
> with Dr Caughley, a senior member of the Commonwealth Scientific and
> Industrial Research Organization who extended many offers of
> collaborative research with Australian corporations which would have
> reduced their R & D costs even further. He failed to cut a single deal.
> [...]
Well, you admit it wasn't a carte blanche -- what strings were attached?
> I counted two contentions there, by the way, not three. May I stick you
> in the comfy chair? :)
You calling me a fat ass? ;-) I forgot to change "three" to "two"
when I edited that section -- sorry for any confusion.
> Then it seems as if corporate America is benefitting more from the
> efficiencies realized by the coordination the Government can effect than
> they are losing by being forced to pay taxes, doesn't it?
The farmers are, that's for sure; maybe the oilmen with the US military
deployment in the Middle East. But I doubt corporate America as a
whole is gaining anything. More importantly, individuals are not
gaining anything with their income tax dollars funding various
corporate and social welfare programs.
> The point is that under the funding regime you're proposing, I wouldn't
> have had anywhere else to go.
That returns me to my central question: Why are you _entitled_ to go
anywhere? What _right_ do you have to do your research on the backs of
others? If I were you, I would consider myself fortunate to have the
HGP to fall back on, given to you by the grace of taxpayers.
> Well, you're the one whose argument depended on the assertion that
> private organizations are more efficient than public ones. I think the
> onus is on you to demonstrate the problem with public organizations, not
> the reverse. [...]
Oh man, where do I start?
* Citizens Against Government Waste
- http://www.cagw.org/
Exposes just how the US government is blowing public funds. Do you
think this kind of waste would be tolerated by Wall Street? I
particularly recommend the writings about Medicare.
* Graph showing the correlation between wealth and economic liberty
- http://www.heritage.org/index/2001/wealth.html
Of course, others on the list already blasted this chart, questioning
causation. However, I'm hoping a self-professed utilitarian like you
will see the connection.
* GAO Performance and Accountability Update
- http://www.gao.gov/pas/2001/pas01.html
Download the first PDF file, "A Governmentwide Perspective," and start
at page 65.
From the government's own mouth.
> [...] But at any rate, I think the NSF grant proposal scheme
> imposes adequate accountability on research projects, and certainly
> provides better coordination of the national research community than
> could be achieved using only corporate funds. [...]
Now _you_ are making an assertion which needs to be proven, that
central planning is efficient, even in this case. Do you think MIT
should share, or compete? Competition engenders greater
accountability, and redundancy allows the verification of results.
> [...] Moreover, I'm not aware
> of any egregious inefficiencies in the HGP.
Neither am I, though I'm suspicious when an organization with the
backing of the US government has to hook up with a private firm doing
the same thing. If the org is doing work for the public good, why team
up unless it needs help or a saving of face?
> [...] So everybody won, except curmudgeons who object to being forced
> to contribute to such an effort. :)
Celera gained from this collaboration, otherwise it would have
declined. In which case, yet another instance of a corporate subsidy.
> [...] So unless you're suggesting that dozens of
> corporations might have been working independantly on the structure of
> DNA and were prepared to share their results with each other, it's
> unlikely that the research could have been pursued so efficiently [...]
Again, you are employing the assertion that central planning is
economically effective. How do I know the government isn't breaking my
legs, then handing me crutches with this tax-and-spend strategy? This
was hypothesis #3 in my original email: the government is mooching off
of taxpayers, and corporations are mooching off the government in the
context of basic research.
> [...] or the
> results promulgated to the world research community had it only been
> funded by corporate sponsorship.
Oh no!
Of course, it's in a corporation's self-interest to have its basic
discoveries subject to impartial review. Twenty percent of MIT's
research funding _does_ come from private entities which ostensibly buy
into this strategy.
> [...] At any rate,
> even if these places devoted themselves entirely to basic research, they
> would be insignificant compared to the research community supported by
> the government.
Again, how would we know the extent and nature of private research
funding if the government weren't charging corporations 10% and
individuals 0-37%? Perhaps money would flow to research more useful to
people, if people had a choice. The more scientifically versed among
us are currently being forced to pay for other people's idiotic pet
projects.
> OK, so suppose you have the opportunity to rob someone without him or
> anyone else discovering that you're the perpetrator. Would you take
> that opportunity? [...]
No.
> [...] It doesn't seem to impinge on your right to "rational
> life" to the extent that I understand what you mean.
Okay, you don't understand what I mean. I wouldn't rob someone because
it would not satisfy my ego to take something not produced by the
application of my own mind and effort. Laissez-faire is about
individuals trading wealth that they themselves have created, or
received as a matter of goodwill (e.g., kids getting birthday money
from parents).
> [...] For a more realistic
> example, imagine what Microsoft could have done if it hadn't had the
> threat of antitrust laws hanging over it.
Provided integration between Internet and desktop, accentuated platform
consistency and compatibility, and driven down prices. Oh, man, that
would have sucked!
For the record, I use Linux because it meets my needs better, and is in
some ways objectively superior to Win NT/2000. Also, some of
Microsoft's business decisions seem utterly stupid. Nevertheless, I
have no moral problems with Microsoft's practices or philosophy.
> For simplicity's sake, we could say I subscribe to utilitarian ethics,
> for now. There's a lot I agree with in Peter Singer's The Expanding
> Circle, for instance.
I'm not familiar with that book (?) -- I might check it out.
You haven't answered my question: If slavery were macroeconomically
efficient and politically stabilizing, would you support it? Ethics,
properly formulated, cannot lead to contradictory answers, but science,
posing as ethics, can.
> You seem less interested in thinking about right and wrong than I do,
> frankly. I just think it's unlikely that I can get through to you on
> this issue, because you've decided that Objectivism effectively answers
> all ethical issues, and seem threatened by criticism of it.
???? Dude, I'm here on mit-talk taking on all comers who are willing
to discuss ethics (Wally, Aimee Smith, Zhe Scott, Cannady, etc.), while
simultaneously dealing with people who are annoyed that I would defend
my ethics against attacks to them (Wally, Beland, et al.). Ask me
anything you like, and I'll answer it; challenge anything you like, and
I'll defend it; convince me of an error in my personal philosophy, and
I'll buy you a beer, not to mention adopt your position.
Of course, you might want to do it off-list, lest we raise the cackles
of those who would rather not listen or participate. We can move this
over to "spa-discuss", if you like.
> Yes, but the progress was nowhere near as rapid as it is today, and I
> think public funding has contributed to this acceleration
> significantly.
If public funding were such a panacea, India would be a superpower.
> a) I don't care about military dominance, I mean that everybody wanted
> to buy stuff off you guys and you got rich. The military dominance was
> just a side-effect of your wealth.
Then what do you mean by "significant projects?" Yes, as a general
rule, teamwork becomes more beneficial as with bigger and bigger
endeavours. However, such teamwork should be _voluntary_, otherwise
its slavery (of varying degrees).
> b) I thought you said all ethical questions fall out from your
> overarching ethical principle, so what's complicated about this case?
> How do you justify military dominance ethically?
Let's take China for example. Their government is oppressive --
witness the censorship and recent detentions of Western-minded
intellectuals. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the
people of China are quite aware of the activities of the government,
and support it since many are at the feeding trough themselves. So,
while the US should take all steps to protect itself from real or
potential Chinese aggression, the question of economic sanction, trade
status, etc. is more complex. Who is bad? Who is good? The ethics
are clear, but the adjudication is an epistemological disaster.
> [...] Since the aim of your proposal is
> to prevent the government from forcing you to contribute to endeavours
> without your consent, it would drastically disturb American life without
> getting you what you want.
Why are you taking it as an axiom, that the self-interest of those in
power must necessarily conflict with that of the citizenry? It simply
takes the right system; I believe, the US government, as given by the
Constitution minus some undesirable late amendments, is such a system.
Cheers,
Sourav
------------------------------------------------------------
Sourav K. Mandal
Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
