How Libertarians Reconcile Themselves with Government Funding of Scientific Research
In the world of libertarianism, the principle of non-aggression (NAP) reigns supreme. For the unwaveringly principled libertarian, non-aggression takes precedence over any speculative social benefits that might come from government-funded scientific research. Although such research may have significant benefits to society, it cannot justify funding through non-voluntary means like taxation. Libertarians advocate for funding such endeavors through voluntary means, such as personal donations and encouragement to others to fund these initiatives. If people are not willing to fund certain research, it should not be funded at all.
A Consequential Approach
For those who adopt a more pragmatic and consequentialist approach, the issue is addressed in the video by Terence Kealey. However, I, for one, align more with the perspective that government funding of anything other than armed forces, police, and fire services is unwarranted. Social safety nets, such as programs to help children in abusive care, are seen as a positive use of funds if they are necessary and beneficial to society. Issues like autism and cancer, which affect me and my family, could be supported with voluntary donations if the funds were available.
Unfortunately, the onerous tax burdens hinder my ability to support such causes. Government funds are disproportionately allocated to initiatives that may not have a clear public benefit, such as research on diseases like HIV/AIDS, which receive substantial funding when compared to other more prevalent diseases such as influenza or heart disease. These allocations are made based on the government's priorities and may not reflect the priorities of the general public.
The Nature of Government Funding
A true-blue libertarian would oppose government funding of science, except in the case where the funding is for the development of proper weapons to defend against aggressive nations or groups. Every societal benefit ascribed to government funding, in this case, research funding, is automatically assumed to be a net positive. However, it's important to consider that there is a lot unseen.
Government funding of the sciences rewards the programs that the government deems important, in the proportions that the government deems appropriate. For instance, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports that in 2022, the government spent nearly 2.5 times as much on HIV/AIDS research as it did on heart disease research, and 11 times as much as on influenza research. This prioritization raises questions about the actual public benefit and the unseen costs and trade-offs.
The transactional costs of funding these initiatives are significant and often go unconsidered. In many cases, the government's allocation of funds may skew the research outcomes away from what might be considered most beneficial for society as a whole. Instead of relying on government funding, libertarians advocate for a system where individuals have the freedom to choose how to allocate their resources, ensuring that every dollar spent goes to the causes that truly matter to them.
It is essential to recognize that every dollar allocated by the government is money that could be used by individuals to support causes they believe are important. This freedom allows for a more efficient and effective allocation of resources, ensuring that the funding goes to the initiatives that truly benefit society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, libertarians see the role of the government in funding scientific research as deeply problematic. While research may have significant benefits, funding it through non-voluntary means undermines the principles of liberty and the rights of individuals to choose how their resources are spent. This differentiation between voluntary and coercive funding is fundamental to the libertarian philosophy and the importance of individual choice in determining societal priorities.