tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post1354653632468569763..comments2024-03-11T05:58:13.874-04:00Comments on Halbert's Cubicle: Science vs. WelfareHalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17985840356273623901noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post-9509880299151497742007-05-10T23:14:00.000-04:002007-05-10T23:14:00.000-04:00I absolutely can not believe that you think that v...I absolutely can not believe that you think that verse provides a biblical foundation against welfare programs! That's just silly. I have to go pack as I'm traveling to Chicago tomorrow - so instead of writing a whole long thing - just try Deut. 15:10-11 on for size. Or maybe... anything Jesus said.Jared and Bethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02036401417613043517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post-6569172937232932602007-05-10T15:08:00.000-04:002007-05-10T15:08:00.000-04:00Incidentally, yours is the argument I make about a...<I>Incidentally, yours is the argument I make about all welfare. Why not let charities handle that? That doesn't get much traction for some reason.</I><BR/>Biblically speaking, the Bible leaves charity work to be done by both individuals and business owners. It speaks directly against welfare programs (Leviticus 19:10) in that it doesn't say, "gather for the poor" it says "leave some for the poor to work for themselves".<BR/><BR/><I>"Ceasing to fund via government" does not necessarily mean "halting research". Is there no way that the free market can handle this? </I><BR/><BR/>Since the free market is profit driven, it has a weakness when we're talking about being the sole provider of scientific development. Specifically concerning medical research. The discovery of a cure for a disease is ridiculously expensive, and on top of that research cost, the comapny (rightly) expects to gain a return on their investment, however the company is now in a place to charge exorbitant amounts for something that a person literally needs to be alive. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but that seems awefully close to blackmail. I'm normally a strict proponent of the free market curing all ills, but curing ills may be the area that is hardest for the free market to deal with ethically.The Experthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03423082175778738037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post-29196878653633414002007-05-09T12:27:00.000-04:002007-05-09T12:27:00.000-04:00science has prospered more in the era of governmen...<I>science has prospered more in the era of government funding than under corporate funding alone</I><BR/><BR/>although these days NASA is doing its darndest to buck this trend hehe<BR/><BR/><I>Why not let charities handle that?</I><BR/><BR/>So you're ok asking this question when it comes to caring for the vulnerable - just not when it comes to science? I think the proposition doesn't get traction for the same reasons you pointed out that science funding should not be left entirely to the market. After all, there is not nearly as much motivation in the market for charity. Charity is not a natural phenomena - in fact quite the opposite. The driving force in the free market is generally greed (to varying extents). So to me it seems like even more a gamble that the job will be done if we decide - meh - let someone else worry about the poor.Jared and Bethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02036401417613043517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post-15812090178009626802007-05-08T21:53:00.000-04:002007-05-08T21:53:00.000-04:00Is there no way that the free market can handle th...<I>Is there no way that the free market can handle this?</I><BR/><BR/>Sure. But I think we both agree that science has prospered more in the era of government funding than under corporate funding alone. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, yours is the argument I make about all welfare. Why not let charities handle that? That doesn't get much traction for some reason.<BR/><BR/>And it was definitely her argument to make because she felt a need to point out that she's always telling legislators to get moving on universal health care.Halhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985840356273623901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5590465.post-65154157582140058992007-05-08T19:50:00.000-04:002007-05-08T19:50:00.000-04:00You were discussing the reasons for doing the proj...You were discussing the reasons for doing the project, yes? Is it unreasonable to think that she may have simply been trying to provoke someone to challenge that opinion?<BR/><BR/>I'll argue for the hell of it though.<BR/><BR/><I>Imagine just shutting down all progress because it is a better priority to ensure those in need are not.</I><BR/><BR/>"Ceasing to fund via government" does not necessarily mean "halting research". Is there no way that the free market can handle this?-Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16841346338225366728noreply@blogger.com