[Eran]

First, I think many companies would spend resources on relevant R&D. Obviously a company would rather have R&D in its field funded by government. It is often cheaper to lobby government to spend the money than it is to spend it yourself. If that alternative exist, why not pursue it? But that doesn't mean that economically-relevant (even relatively long-term) research wouldn't be privately funded.

While the Internet, Space exploration and the Human genome were government funded, they could have easily been funded (probably at slightly different times and with different priorities) privately. Flight, Celera's parallel genome project and virtually all computer technologies on which we rely today were privately funded.

Theoretical research tends to be relatively inexpensive, and could be funded from tuition paid by graduate students (or corporate sponsorship). Expensive experimental research (such as LHC) would be more problematic. Researchers would have to persuade the public (or a few interested high-net-worth individuals) to contribute based on their interest in the subject. Free-riding could be mitigated by allowing people to give conditional contributions (which are not collected unless a threshold of overall contributions is achieved), by giving people special access, or simply relying on people's altruistic contributions.

taxizen's suggestion is an excellent one.

[lucky]

Perhaps the worse problem with your argument is that it proves too much. The very same argument could be used to persuasively prove that [...]

I didn't try to "prove" anything. The purpose of my post was to point out a huge gaping problem in your argument, which you called "logical steps", not to provide an economic model of my own.

[Eran]

What you have correctly shown is that the amount of contribution need not be the same under compulsory vs. voluntary schemes.

The total amount raised could be higher under compulsory scheme, or lower. It could be closer to the social optimum, or further away. No simple economic arguments can resolve the question in the abstract.

My point was that the same forces that cause a democracy to dedicated resources to a problem would work under a voluntary system as well, albeit in a different way and to a different level.

[lucky]

The total amount raised could be higher under compulsory scheme, or lower. It could be closer to the social optimum, or further away. No simple economic arguments can resolve the question in the abstract.

I thought that when you ventured to answer the question "How would X be funded under market anarchism" and ended your 5-point argument with "people will donate", you were implying that the amount raised by that method would be on a reasonable level by some measure, or comparable with normal public funding.

Now you're saying that you made no such quantitative claim at all. In other words, you are now saying that all your argument aimed to show was the obvious "in my voluntary scheme, some people might donate some money". That's pretty obvious, everybody knows that already. It is basically no claim at all. It is definitely not a convincing reason to switch to that financing method, on the contrary, it seems counterproductive.

[Eran]

You are contrasting the admittedly less than perfect method of soliciting voluntary contributions with an idealised government system in which it is known by omniscient government officials what the optimal level of investment is, and that exact amount is actually raised through taxes and directed to the appropriate research projects.

My point is that the various deficiencies of the involuntary system make it far from clear that its results are likely to be superior to those of voluntary contributions.

[lucky]

You are contrasting the admittedly less than perfect method of soliciting voluntary contributions with an idealised government system in which it is known by omniscient government officials what the optimal level of investment is, and that exact amount is actually raised through taxes and directed to the appropriate research projects.

My point is that the various deficiencies of the involuntary system make it far from clear that its results are likely to be superior to those of voluntary contributions.

You are still trying to turn the argument around. It was you who was advocating something and trying to provide a reasoning. It was you, not I, who compared your voluntary contributions mechanism with public spending. I only took that argument and analyzed it. Hence it's up to you to support your point. If your point is just "this might work, but I don't know if it will", then fair enough (even though it's not really what you said initially), but that's not a convincing reason to do anything. It's just a meaningless tautology.

The very same argument could be used to persuasively prove that:
1. Nobody will ever vote in democratic elections (the marginal benefit to one's self of one's vote is virtually nil, not enough to justify getting out of bed in the morning

At least you don't have pay for the real costs of running the election to vote - elections are subsidized from public funds everywhere they are run. Getting out of bed is such a small cost in comparison that it gets dwarfed by other considerations, like: "I like to socialize at the voting booth".

Now if you're talking about getting everybody to fork over a few thousand dollars each to pay for public R&D, or the army, with no penalties if they don't, you'll have a harder time getting a significant fraction of the population to go and toss in the cash to the collection box, since in that case they would have to visit their bank and withdraw the cash in addition to getting out of bed.

[Eran]

Fair enough.

People often go to much more trouble than just waking up in the morning in order to vote. For the vote to be meaningful, people have to invest in understanding the issues, getting familiar with candidates, etc.

As for R&D, the combined budgets of the National Institute for Health, the National Science Foundation and the Science budget of the Department of Energy is about $42bn, or about $120/person/year. Not thousands of dollars.

Much of that spending would easily be picked up by corporations and universities. Do you really think it will be that difficult to get people (in a society in which their wages aren't taxed, nor are they forced to pay sales tax or VAT) to fork out less than $10/month?

[lucky]

Much of that spending would easily be picked up by corporations and universities. Do you really think it will be that difficult to get people (in a society in which their wages aren't taxed, nor are they forced to pay sales tax or VAT) to fork out less than $10/month?

Yes. I did not donate $120 to the NSF last year, even though I'm sure they would be happy to take the donations, and even though my income is many times higher than an average person's. I don't see why I'd be more motivated to do that under tax-free anarchy (especially since I'd be busy fighting off neighboring clans, lol).

[Eran]

At least two reasons. First, knowing that government takes care of research (or welfare, for that matter) naturally makes people less inclined to donate money. Institutions requiring research are investing money in lobbying Congress, rather than raising funds from the public.

Second, your disposable income would be much higher under an anarchy. The same amount will be much more affordable.

And no, you wouldn't be busy fighting anybody off. You'd be living in a nice safe neighbourhood, protected by people whose livelihood depends on your business, rather than on the good will of politicians.

[lucky]

First, knowing that government takes care of research (or welfare, for that matter) naturally makes people less inclined to donate money.

Knowing that research is paid for makes me somewhat less likely to donate than if it wasn't paid for at all. But I don't really care if it's the government paying for it or somebody else. Or are you admitting that their budget would be much smaller?

Second, your disposable income would be much higher under an anarchy. The same amount will be much more affordable.

My after-tax income is already much higher than an average person's before-tax income. An average person's after-tax income is already higher than it was before-tax some years ago.

More importantly: taxes are not all wasted, you get value in return from the government.

If you're trying to argue how spending money through voluntary means is more efficient than through taxation, you can't use the argument that people would be richer because spending via voluntary means is more efficient than through taxation, since that's circular. The assumption is exactly what you're trying to argue for, so it will only convince the already convinced.

[Eran]

I take your point about one's attitude knowing that something is already paid for (whether by government or by other donations).

I think my point on where organisations spend their resources to raise funds is relevant. At the moment, nobody is trying particularly hard to make you aware of the need for donations towards research, to show you the important things that such donations enable, to offer you tempting special offers, etc.


As for showing that people will be richer without government, that is hardly circular. The conversation around R&D is difficult because of externalities. Most government spending isn't on true public goods. Most goes towards either private goods (education, health-care, police protection, roads, public transportation, etc.) or towards public bads (drug enforcement, foreign interventions). Much goes towards corporate welfare and other special-interest groups.



So while it is true that our personal savings wouldn't quite be as high as our entire current tax bill, I have little doubt that we will be significantly wealthier.

[lucky]

As for showing that people will be richer without government, that is hardly circular. The conversation around R&D is difficult because of externalities. Most government spending isn't on true public goods. Most goes towards either private goods (education, health-care, police protection, roads, public transportation, etc.) or towards public bads (drug enforcement, foreign interventions). Much goes towards corporate welfare and other special-interest groups.

That's cool, but we can cut those other things regardless of whether we cut R&D. That's a separate discussion! If you're trying to decide whether to spend money on X, you have to weigh the costs vs benefits of X, all else being equal.

Take one issue at a time. If somebody already agreed with you that people would be richer under anarchy, they would already be anarchists. You're not going to convert anybody to anarchism by arguing "clearly people would be richer under anarchy, therefore (an argument about why we should cut R&D spending or something else)".

[Eran]

Conversely, if people are pre-disposed to oppose libertarianism, let alone anarchy, showing them that R&D will be taken-care of under anarchy isn't going to make them into anarchists.

The entire discussion over anarchy is futile with hard-core statists. It only makes sense amongst libertarians. Libertarians do tend to accept that most services currently provided by government would be better (more efficient, cheaper, higher quality, etc.) when provided by the free market.

Our starting point should therefore be a libertarian, albeit not an anarchist or even a minarchist society. One in which most services currently provided by government (education, healthcare, most if not all infrastructure, quality assurance, old age insurance, etc.) are privately handled. Such a society, libertarians will tend to agree, is likely to be wealthier than ours, with people (despite having to pay out-of-pocket for some services currently provided out of tax dollars) having more disposable income.

In the context of such society, one in which people are much less reliant on government to pay for "public goods", one in which people have much more disposable income than they do now, we can ask what would happen to investments in R&D.

You were correct to criticize my initial analysis as not being quantitatively-robust. I have demonstrated that some people will contribute some money towards R&D, but not that the amount donated will be greater than, as large as or smaller than what is currently done by government. Nor have I demonstrated that the amounts will be closer to or further from a social optimum.

Speaking to fellow libertarians, I hardly need to stress that there is no good reason to expect government investment in R&D (or any other good, for that matter) to be close to social optimum. Government decision-makers lack any means to rationally allocate resources, as they are not privy to essential signals from consumers regarding the consumers' preferences. Government decision-makers also lack any incentives to make good choices, especially regarding long-term goals. Their mere ability to over-come the problem of externalities is a very small compensation for a myriad of government-failures.

Even if government could get closer to a socially-optimal level of R&D investment, this would hardly be an argument to have government. The very same mechanism that allows government to charge people more than they would normally choose to donate towards R&D (the latter throughout assumed to be a public good) equally allows it to charge people more than they would normally choose to donate towards public bads (like corporate subsidies or foreign interventions). Even with respect to public goods, government could just as easily over-spend as under-spend.


By now I believe I have demonstrated various mechanisms whereby investment in R&D will not cease under an anarchy (universities, private corporations and donations). Whether that level of investment will be less or more beneficial to society than that undertaken by government authorities is impossible to tell.

[mum]

Exactly.
How do we know that the space program should actually be taking place, at this time and in the current capacity ?
Just because the government throws billions of dollars at something doesn't make it desireable by the public (that could come after, through govt marketing)
The only way to know the right amount of money is invested in certain ventures is to allow the free market (consumers) to directly support it.
Maybe the correct time to go into space is when certain resources here on earth are so depleted it becomes economically feasible to mine some asteroids or the moon. I don't think the common man really cares about some US flag stuck in the moon... or maybe they do care enough to have funded it voluntarily... how do we know ?

[Someone5]

In anarcho-communism, people would exploit inventors for being too giddy for their own good. They'd prefer to live a simple life, and would look at inventors as making things complicated - the advent of capitalism.

I can't see why that would be the case. What makes you think people would view inventions as things that complicate life?

On the flip side, if an inventor doesn't invent stuff, the inventor is looked upon as selfish, and becomes a social outcast.

How do you figure? They'd just do something else, like, I don't know, plant crops or something. If an inventor doesn't invent, no one would know they are inventor. They wouldn't know that he was denying them his inventions if he didn't invent things.

Even in the case of gifts, gifts could be unsatisfying, and if the inventor doesn't rejuvenate, selfishness is again accused.

... a gift economy is not about paying tribute to people.

[Someone5]

The only way to know the right amount of money is invested in certain ventures is to allow the free market (consumers) to directly support it.

There is an obvious counter-example of a gift economy where one knows something is right because there are enough resources donated to its occurrence that it actually happens. Or, in other words, a space program would be obviously correct if there were enough resources available to it that the program exists.

Free markets are actually kind of a bad way to resolve this sort of allocation because free markets have significant distortions in them.

Now, how R&D would work under market anarchism... i have no idea. I don't think it would. I can't really see R&D being any kind of priority once society has collapsed under market anarchism.

[mum]

Now, how R&D would work under market anarchism... i have no idea. I don't think it would. I can't really see R&D being any kind of priority once society has collapsed under market anarchism.

Well it wouldn't collapse so lets forget that point.
Simply knowing that consumers have a strong desire for an ever better quality of life is enough to assume that R&D would occur in an an-cap society. Apple does R&D for the next iphone, Microsoft does R&D for a better OS or other software, car companies do R&D for more fuel efficient cars.

[Someone5]

Well it wouldn't collapse so lets forget that point.

Under market anarchism? Sure it would. It would fall apart inside a year. Either fall apart or transition to something else when that society tries to save itself.

Simply knowing that consumers have a strong desire for an ever better quality of life is enough to assume that R&D would occur in an an-cap society. Apple does R&D for the next iphone, Microsoft does R&D for a better OS or other software, car companies do R&D for more fuel efficient cars.

Yeah, that makes sense... until everyone is starving to death because you live under "market anarchism" and no one can be sure of their next meal, let alone care about the great new features of the latest phone.

[michael3]

"Under [b]market anarchism? Sure it would. It would fall apart inside a year. Either fall apart or transition to something else when that society tries to save itself."[/b]


I believe, with you, that 'market anarchism', or 'Anarcho-Capitalism' as some call it, would fall apart inside of a year. Moreover, I also tend to believe that 'Market Anarchism' is the final phase of Capitalism...An supreme irony that it is with Capitalism that the State would 'whither away', not Communism. I believe that eventually the Capitalists will privatize all functions of the State, and then Capitalism will then collapse.

So, no, I don't think there will be much R&D in a market anarchism, unless it's R&D to shift to Anarchist Communism before they exterminate the human race....

[mum]

Under market anarchism? Sure it would. It would fall apart inside a year. Either fall apart or transition to something else when that society tries to save itself.

No it wouldn't. People are not stupid like you think. People like to get along with each other and trade with each other, they always have, they always will.

Yeah, that makes sense... until everyone is starving to death because you live under "market anarchism" and no one can be sure of their next meal, let alone care about the great new features of the latest phone.

So you are saying the state is what stops people from starving to death ? Serious ? Really ?

I believe, with you, that 'market anarchism', or 'Anarcho-Capitalism' as some call it, would fall apart inside of a year. Moreover, I also tend to believe that 'Market Anarchism' is the final phase of Capitalism..

Lets hope so !

An supreme irony that it is with Capitalism that the State would 'whither away', not Communism. I believe that eventually the Capitalists will privatize all functions of the State

Excellent! This is what we need

, and then Capitalism will then collapse.

wha ?? So the functions of the state get privatized than bam! society falls apart. Do you have any reasoning for this absurd idea ?

So, no, I don't think there will be much R&D in a market anarchism, unless it's R&D to shift to Anarchist Communism before they exterminate the human race....

Really?? who is "they"

It is in socialist/communist countries where R&D is severely limited (if any). Commies keep going on about the R&D in Russia but that was in a small segment of industry and the rest of society was forced to get by with pretty much zero innovation in their day to day lives, for many years.