[veganarchocap]

I'd argue that our scientific process and development would improve exponentially as result of replacing the old Socialist, state funded model with a voluntary consumer model.

Private enterprise is already financing ambitious projects once sought only by state provisions on their own merit. Such as Virgin Galactic. I think if innovation in these fields were brought into the responsibility of private investment, investors would see it as their job and not the state. In other words the state monopolises on grandiose scientific projects, making it too difficult for the average enterprise to compete.

This is probably due to the states mechanism of 'bigging up' its own achievements in order to justify its own existence.

I think there's a bright future for technology and science in the private sphere. Facebook working on AI is another recent example. Google have been funding scientific studies mostly in tech for years. We need to embrace this.

Big businesses understand that scientific breakthrough could well be the next biggest product on the market, even on a simple basis of materials. Producing newer, stronger, more durable materials is not just benefit to the producers, but to the consumers. State science rarely deals with practical innovation that we as consumers can benefit directly from either.

Almost every business, big and small has some form of R&D department or group, and more are following suite. It's becoming a standard and I think in this model, we will see our species's biggest gains in advancement.

I think another important point is that consumers have a choice when it comes to private enterprise, whereas they don't when these funds are forcibly extorted through taxation. Those on minimum wage can barely afford essentials, let alone the money to fund space programs.

Long live private enterprise, long live Capitalism!

[noelwelsh]

I don't recognise the world you are talking about. Particularly "the state monopolises on grandiose scientific projects, making it too difficult for the average enterprise to compete". On the contrary, the state funds the basic research that is then "monopolised" by enterprise once it has been sufficiently developed. The rocket tech. that Virgin Galactic is using didn't come from nowhere. Neither did the deep learning methods that Facebook is investing in.

[veganarchocap]

NASA is a government agency, in the UK we're bound to a part of the EU known as the European Space Agency, they aren't subject to the same laws and regulations, let alone taxes as well as all the normal rules of competitive business that privately owned enterprises are.

They've utilised their monopoly of force in order to contract themselves to these responsibilities. Most likely in order to use the glory to justify their existence.

[brazzy]

> I'd argue that our scientific process and development would improve exponentially as result of replacing the old Socialist, state funded model with a voluntary consumer model.

I'd argue the exact oppsite: that the current private research work done especially in the field of medicine would yield vastly more benefit for lower costs if it were completely replaced by state funded research.

[dagw]

Private enterprise is already financing ambitious projects once sought only by state provisions on their own merit. Such as Virgin Galactic

I'd like to open by saying that I have nothing but respect for Virgin Galactic. I still get chills thinking back on watching the SpaceShipOne flight. I also largely agree with your stance.

That being said the argument could be made that all Virgin Galactic is doing is taking all the hard work and science done by the old state funded model and trying to repackage it in a simple cheaper form for "mass marker" consumption. That's not Science, that's business and engineering. And no one would disagree with that fact that Capitalism is great at business and engineering.

Capitalism rocks at taking concepts out of obscure theoretical journals and putting them in a form that affect our daily lives (often for the better), no argument there. I'm somewhat less convinced that capitalism rocks at getting those concepts into those obscure theoretical journals in the first place.

[acqq]

Most of the big and basic scientific projects currently funded would never be funded by private investors.

[veganarchocap]

Only because the state monopolises such projects through taxation, regulation, licensing laws etc.

There are already examples of private investment achieving in these areas despite all of the above. I think private enterprise will eventually take over, but it will be a long battle.

[xioxox]

Would private enterprise really fund fundamental research, such as particle physics at CERN or astronomy? These things are important for our understanding of the nature and the universe, but the economic return is extremely hard to predict, although sometimes very large. Who would have thought that something like the world wide web would originate from particle physics? The returns from fundamental research can be several decades later.

[daughart]

Would private research have ever discovered the structure of DNA? And why? How do you defend this R&D project to your board of directors in the early 1950's? What does the ROI calculation look like?

Companies are good at research when there is a payoff in sight. What about the fields with no quick return? Or the fields that don't yet exist?