4 ms·

To play devil's advocate for a moment, surely there are other things paid for by tax dollars where the benefit is indirect like it is in research?

karmelapple 10y ago
The national interstate system might be one of those things. Sure, it's directly helpful to people going on long drives in their car between cities... but people could fly or train it, too. However, the indirect benefits are that produce and other goods can be shipped via semi trucks quickly (ignoring the environmental and road quality impact they make). So there's both direct and indirect benefits to taxpayers there.
mindcrime 10y ago
To play devil's advocate for a moment, surely there are other things paid for by tax dollars where the benefit is indirect like it is in research? No doubt. And there are all sorts of discussions one could get into about what should and shouldn't be publicly funded. As a Libertarian, I'm usually in the minority on those discussions, so let's not even go into that. My take on this is basically "if they're going to take my money and spend it, I at least want the system to be fair" (as I perceive it). And at least in my world-view, I think it's ridiculous to have to pay again just to read the research, especially now that we're in the Internet age where distribution costs are dramatically lower. If I wanted a paper journal mailed to me, sure, I'd be fine paying for that (up to a point). But as cheap as it is to create a PDF and slap it on a website, and then looking at how much journals are charging per article, it just feels like a complete abuse.
- mrdrozdov 10y ago
  I suppose the argument that I'd like to investigate is the true purpose of tax dollars, since it's not explicitly clear to me how tax dollars are meant to be used. I think that's a distinct line of reasoning from how research papers should be shared more openly. It sounds like you'd probably agree that the issues are separate, in which case tax dollar allocation may not need to be involved in this conversation.

karmelapple 10y ago

The national interstate system might be one of those things. Sure, it's directly helpful to people going on long drives in their car between cities... but people could fly or train it, too. However, the indirect benefits are that produce and other goods can be shipped via semi trucks quickly (ignoring the environmental and road quality impact they make). So there's both direct and indirect benefits to taxpayers there.

mindcrime 10y ago

To play devil's advocate for a moment, surely there are other things paid for by tax dollars where the benefit is indirect like it is in research? No doubt. And there are all sorts of discussions one could get into about what should and shouldn't be publicly funded. As a Libertarian, I'm usually in the minority on those discussions, so let's not even go into that. My take on this is basically "if they're going to take my money and spend it, I at least want the system to be fair" (as I perceive it). And at least in my world-view, I think it's ridiculous to have to pay again just to read the research, especially now that we're in the Internet age where distribution costs are dramatically lower. If I wanted a paper journal mailed to me, sure, I'd be fine paying for that (up to a point). But as cheap as it is to create a PDF and slap it on a website, and then looking at how much journals are charging per article, it just feels like a complete abuse.

mrdrozdov 10y ago
I suppose the argument that I'd like to investigate is the true purpose of tax dollars, since it's not explicitly clear to me how tax dollars are meant to be used. I think that's a distinct line of reasoning from how research papers should be shared more openly. It sounds like you'd probably agree that the issues are separate, in which case tax dollar allocation may not need to be involved in this conversation.