3 ms·

While I support cuts and reforms, I'm a bit saddened and worried by cuts at NSF. Most of the best work I've shared here was funded by NSF. The private sector la

While I support cuts and reforms, I'm a bit saddened and worried by cuts at NSF. Most of the best work I've shared here was funded by NSF. The private sector largely wasn't doing it. If they did, the deliverables weren't free but sometimes were when NSF funded. I'd hate to see those types of grants go. That said, there is an ideological difference driving this on at least two points (if ignoring DEI etc). One, taxes are taken from individuals to be spent on the government's priorities. Good, evil, or just wasteful... you have no say. If private donations, then you can fund the people and efforts you value most with your money. Conservatives say your money should be yours as much as possible which requires cutting NSF, etc. Second, private individuals and businesses decide most of what happens in the markets. The problems in the markets are really their responsibility. If it needs NSF funding, the private parties are probably already failing to make that decision or see it as a bad one. Private, market theory says it's better to let markets run themselves with government interventions mostly blocking harmful behaviors. Ex: If nobody funds or buys secure systems, let them have the consequences of the insecure systems they want so much. Don't fund projects that nobody is buying or selling. Those are two, large drivers in conservative policy that will exist regardless of other, political beliefs. Those arguing against it are saying the people running the government are more trustworthy with our money. Yet, they're crying out against what the current government is doing. Do they really trust them and want all those resources controlled by the latest administration? Or retain control of their own money to back, as liberals, what they belief in?

watersb 1y ago
Your argument is well stated, if I understand it, as the power of free markets to make better choices regarding resource allocation than redistribution by government bureaucracy. If so, then I can disagree. However the market behaves in the United States, it has failed us. Compromise with market forces, in the form of "public-private partnership", has only increased the cost of providing fewer government services. Market forces won't fix healthcare. Won't invest in early a stage tech development or scientific research that might take decades of investment before becoming amenable to market-driven participation. Market forces most certainly won't provide adequate care for children or elderly. Every society requires social investment. But maybe I don't understand your point. Sorry.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  I think their first point is different than just free markets. It was about shifting the locus of control from the government, to the individuals. 1) Instead of having the money taken from you and begging the administration to do what you want, let people decide what they want, and voluntarily collaborate using the tools and organizations they choose. This may be the government or another organization, but the individual would have the power to withdraw their support unilaterally. Essentially make more social investment and participation voluntary. This would be a shifting of the power downwards and a decentralization. Switzerland is an interesting case study for this. Approximately 70% of all taxes go to the Canton or lower levels (comparable to a US state county). This means the vast majority of tax spending and oversight occurs locally. This makes a lot of sense to me. If I want social investment, a new school, or transportation, my money goes all the way to the capital, and then I have to fight to have my voice heard among 350 million Americans fighting for attention. I'm arguing against another citizen 2 thousand miles away through dozens of proxies and bureaucrats. I recognize that some activities benefit from economies of scale, but many don't, or suffer diseconomies of scale.
  - nickpsecurity 1y ago
    You got it right. Republicans want more power in private hands so they decide most things. It's also voluntary as you said. Thanks for the information about Switzerland's local-first model of taxation. That's really interesting. It might help us over here for the exact reasons you said.
    - s1artibartfast 1y ago
      As you might expect, they have some of the best infrastructure in Europe, and attribute this partially to the local control. I would be much more willing to vote for infrastructure taxes if they were tied to a specific local project I could see with my else than some nebulous promise. There is an inverse example in California school spending. In 1972, California Senate Bill 90 (SB 90), was passed in 1972 to place limitations on using local taxes to fund local schools and centralize school funding at the state level. In 1978, citizens responded by passing now famous Proposition 13 to set statewide limits on property taxes. SB 90 weakened the link between what property owners paid and the quality of their local schools. This made residents less willing to property taxes and fund schools at all, since they had less say in how the money was spent. The better school districts in California are now tied to private organizations to get around both SB90 and prop 13. Local parents pay into a non-governmental fund that will purchase buildings and run programs in the schools, allowing their money to stay local.

watersb 1y ago

Your argument is well stated, if I understand it, as the power of free markets to make better choices regarding resource allocation than redistribution by government bureaucracy. If so, then I can disagree. However the market behaves in the United States, it has failed us. Compromise with market forces, in the form of "public-private partnership", has only increased the cost of providing fewer government services. Market forces won't fix healthcare. Won't invest in early a stage tech development or scientific research that might take decades of investment before becoming amenable to market-driven participation. Market forces most certainly won't provide adequate care for children or elderly. Every society requires social investment. But maybe I don't understand your point. Sorry.

s1artibartfast 1y ago
I think their first point is different than just free markets. It was about shifting the locus of control from the government, to the individuals. 1) Instead of having the money taken from you and begging the administration to do what you want, let people decide what they want, and voluntarily collaborate using the tools and organizations they choose. This may be the government or another organization, but the individual would have the power to withdraw their support unilaterally. Essentially make more social investment and participation voluntary. This would be a shifting of the power downwards and a decentralization. Switzerland is an interesting case study for this. Approximately 70% of all taxes go to the Canton or lower levels (comparable to a US state county). This means the vast majority of tax spending and oversight occurs locally. This makes a lot of sense to me. If I want social investment, a new school, or transportation, my money goes all the way to the capital, and then I have to fight to have my voice heard among 350 million Americans fighting for attention. I'm arguing against another citizen 2 thousand miles away through dozens of proxies and bureaucrats. I recognize that some activities benefit from economies of scale, but many don't, or suffer diseconomies of scale.
- nickpsecurity 1y ago
  You got it right. Republicans want more power in private hands so they decide most things. It's also voluntary as you said. Thanks for the information about Switzerland's local-first model of taxation. That's really interesting. It might help us over here for the exact reasons you said.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    As you might expect, they have some of the best infrastructure in Europe, and attribute this partially to the local control. I would be much more willing to vote for infrastructure taxes if they were tied to a specific local project I could see with my else than some nebulous promise. There is an inverse example in California school spending. In 1972, California Senate Bill 90 (SB 90), was passed in 1972 to place limitations on using local taxes to fund local schools and centralize school funding at the state level. In 1978, citizens responded by passing now famous Proposition 13 to set statewide limits on property taxes. SB 90 weakened the link between what property owners paid and the quality of their local schools. This made residents less willing to property taxes and fund schools at all, since they had less say in how the money was spent. The better school districts in California are now tied to private organizations to get around both SB90 and prop 13. Local parents pay into a non-governmental fund that will purchase buildings and run programs in the schools, allowing their money to stay local.