rainbow wrote:
OK, so the basic research is taxpayer supplied. Same thing.
Were the taxpayers asked if they wanted to be dunned to finance this basic research? No.
BTW, before you went on your rant on roads, you should've realised that it was an example of how the government supplies infrastructure, sometimes good and sometimes not so good, where private initiatives might not be bothered to do so.
That's because there is no profit in it. You can't toll every street in a city.
Government manages to "toll" every street in a city quite effectively, don't they? Why cannot private enterprise do the same thing? If the residents of B street want it paved and don't want potholes that they have to drive through every day, then they can pay for the paving and maintenance, can't they? They can go neighbor to neighbor and collect funds to fund the infrastructure and issue permits to use the road to those who pay and prevent those who do not pay from using the road. They can form a neighborhood association when the neighborhood is built that contractually requires residents to pay for such work, as is the case in tens of thousands of private communities across the US where covenants and neighborhood associations take care of such things without stealing money from the rest of the public
who do not use those facilities.
Now I'm sure you will argue that the burden of trying to collect a fee for every car that might drive through such a neighborhood is beyond consideration because it might require gates and guards and all the costs associated with restricting access to paying residents...which of course many communities already do. But in doing so you fail to consider the altruistic aspects of urban life where people may be willing to voluntarily pay to install and maintain infrastructure open to the use of everyone without restriction merely because doing so makes their individual lives better and more comfortable.
The key here is "voluntariness." If YOU want a street paved so that you don't bang your car up every day, then YOU should contribute to that goal voluntarily because it is in your best interests to do so, regardless of who else might also use the street. You will argue that it's not "fair" that the entire burden of paving and maintaining the street fall upon you alone and others will benefit without paying their "fair share" of the costs, but that's merely a manifestation of selfishness. So long as YOU get what YOU pay for, which is a paved street, what someone else does, so long as it does not damage your interests, is irrelevant.
You will certainly argue that the use of the street paved at your expense by others causes wear and tear that must be repaired that YOU are not responsible for, and therefore it is not "fair" that those persons get to use "your" paved street without sharing in the expenses of maintaining it. This is true and a reasonable argument for assessing a pro-rata share of the costs of using that street against those
who actually use the street. It's not, however, any sort of argument for dunning people who don't live in your area and never use your street for the costs of installing and maintaining it merely on the premise that they might one day possibly make use of it.
So, the consideration becomes how likely it is that an individual taxpayer is going to use a particular street often enough to justify taxing that individual for maintenance of a street he may never use on the premise that because he MIGHT use it, it's not "fair" that he not be dunned the same as everyone else for its maintenance
against his will.
There is no reason why "cost sharing" for such work should be imposed on those who don't, or are unlikely to use the facility, without their consent.
The key is consent.
So, one potential solution, in a non-technological situation, is to publish a standard use fee for entry into, say, a particular city or neighborhood that covers an appropriate pro-rata share of the costs of maintaining the infrastructure. This fee would be based on the impact of the use (large trucks do more damage than passenger cars) and the duration of the use and would be assessed upon exit, just as collecting a toll on a toll road with multiple exits requires you to pay only for the miles you actually drive on the toll road.
London is doing something like this right now by assessing a charge merely to enter the city center by vehicle. It can be done electronically or with a toll booth.
In this fashion, the individual knows what it will cost him to use a particular facility, be it a swimming pool, a bridge (as in the case of New York City) or an entire city street network and the individual can CHOOSE to bear the cost or can CHOOSE to avoid using that facility entirely in order to avoid having to pay for it if he doesn't use it.
I avoid toll roads when I choose, and I use them, and voluntarily pay the toll, when it suits me to do so because the economic or temporal benefits of paying to use the infrastructure exceed the costs of not doing so.
Simple.
The same applies to basic and fundamental research.
Applied research is something that is quite different, and here an application can be created by private companies, built upon the basic research funded by governments.
See?
It isn't that complicated.
Indeed. All you have to do is ask if I want to pay for basic research. If I do, then I'll contribute. If I don't, then you'll have to go begging somewhere else...or do a better job of selling your proposition to me in order convince me that the benefits to be gained exceed the amount you are requesting from me.
It's just common courtesy to ask someone for a contribution to your favorite cause, whatever it may be. Taking it by force, including using the inherent force of government, is simple robbery which must be resisted with all necessary force.
Ring my bell and politely explain and ask for a contribution with hat in hand and I may choose to donate. Kick down my door and threaten me with force to coerce money and I'm highly likely to shoot you dead on the spot, no matter who you are.
Do you understand the distinction now?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
