[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Government spending on certain sciences during and as a result of the cold war (nuclear, rocket, space, moon, computers, etc.) advanced the scientific knowledge ball much further than businenss as usual would have done during the same years. True or false?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Scientific Knowledge" isn't some linear thing that you just dump money into and progress along. It can be advanced in different directions, at different rates, and any particular piece of information can be arrived at from different paths.

So, government spending advanced *some aspects* of scientific knowledge further than they would have been without government spending (for example, I feel comfortable thinking that a free market would not have resulted in intercontinental ballistic missle technology that is advanced as what we have today). It also kept other areas back (by diverting funding).

I made a long post about this a while back. I already recycled it once this week, but here it is again:

We know there is a demand for research. There are some vague conjectures that such demand will not be adequately met without government funding, but no reasoning why except that "it's expensive". Part of the reason it's expensive is government itself - the overhead, the waste.

Of course some people want *more* research. Some people want more farm subsidies, too. Why is *your* prefered level of research funding the "correct" level?

An earlier post of mine on the topic:

Research is effectively an economic problem. There are finite resources, there are multiple competing uses for those resorces. In fact, many of these resources (people and material) have uses in other aspects of the economy - meaning you can't seperate research from other economic activity. It's all tied together.

Everyone already acknowleges that market action is superior to government dictation in the "regular" economy - why should research be any different?

Just the bureaucratic bungling is enough to make this decision clear. But there are other considerations. The political meddling (witness stem cell research) is, by itself, reason enough to not allow government to screw with research. Then the moral impropriety of using other people's money - again, by itself enough to make this decision easy.

Effectiveness: advantage market
Objectiveness: advantage market
Respectfulness: advantage market

Yes, people have made great discoveries with government funding. Just think of how much more could have been discovered already without government interference weighing the process down.