4 ms·

No serious funding for scientific research would be accomplished this way. >"rather than using the force of gov't to coerce every citizen into paying for it"

No serious funding for scientific research would be accomplished this way. >"rather than using the force of gov't to coerce every citizen into paying for it" Oh please. If we're living a capitalist society, we have to realize that citizens are not incentivized to give a significant portion of their money for the improvement of society, so it's time to stop treating things as though free markets will come in and inevitably save the day without government intervention. Specifically, talking about medical research, there is no incentive for me or any other citizen to fund leukemia research, or heart disease research, and I certainly don't donate money to both causes on a regular enough basis to provide enough monetary support for this research. Unless we rethink our current economic model, this is just not a possibility.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- dylandrop 13y ago
  So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? If so you're a saint, but I think most Americans do not. This is understandable - if we live in a society that encourages us to pursue individual success above others, improvement of society is not our top priority clearly. I certainly agree the government is not an ideal re-allocator of wealth. I think it needs to be reformed. But saying "Hey this isn't ideal, so we should throw it away" is kind of silly, no?
  - samolang 13y ago
    > So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? One, you don't necessarily need to donate to different charities for every possible disease. You could donate to a charity "fund" sort of like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Two, I think most people don't donate a lot of money because they feel they are already contributing a lot to benefit society via taxation.
    - dylandrop 13y ago
      > You could donate to a charity "fund" sort of like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. So some sort of central fund for cancer research, where bureaucrats distribute funding to constituent organizations... Hmm where have I heard that before? ;) > they feel they are already contributing a lot to benefit society via taxation. So you _do_ admit it is benefitting society?
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - samolang 13y ago
        > So some sort of central fund for cancer research, where bureaucrats distribute funding to constituent organizations... Hmm where have I heard that before? ;) That's like comparing social security to a personal retirement account.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dylandrop 13y ago
So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? If so you're a saint, but I think most Americans do not. This is understandable - if we live in a society that encourages us to pursue individual success above others, improvement of society is not our top priority clearly. I certainly agree the government is not an ideal re-allocator of wealth. I think it needs to be reformed. But saying "Hey this isn't ideal, so we should throw it away" is kind of silly, no?
- samolang 13y ago
  > So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? One, you don't necessarily need to donate to different charities for every possible disease. You could donate to a charity "fund" sort of like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Two, I think most people don't donate a lot of money because they feel they are already contributing a lot to benefit society via taxation.
  - dylandrop 13y ago
    > You could donate to a charity "fund" sort of like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. So some sort of central fund for cancer research, where bureaucrats distribute funding to constituent organizations... Hmm where have I heard that before? ;) > they feel they are already contributing a lot to benefit society via taxation. So you _do_ admit it is benefitting society?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - samolang 13y ago
      > So some sort of central fund for cancer research, where bureaucrats distribute funding to constituent organizations... Hmm where have I heard that before? ;) That's like comparing social security to a personal retirement account.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]