Your dilemma illustrates why I'm not a Libertarian.

First, let me explain how we are alike. I'm a small government fiscal conservative. I own a gun - many guns actually. I believe in free speech, and I practice it as well.

But I believe government has a place. What entity except for a government can defend the nation, guard the borders, build highways, or plan cities?

We are beginning to see a commercial space program take shape. That will be wonderful, but it took a government effort 33 years ago to put a man on the moon. And there are many examples of scientific projects that the private sector will never support - the supercollider for example.

You mentioned wealthy individuals taking up the slack if the government didn't confiscate so much wealth with taxes. No doubt you are thinking of examples like John Sperling.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/immortal.html

For every John Sperling we get dozens of super rich people who use their wealth solely for their own pleasure - they build huge homes they rarely use and buy boats they never sail. I understand that even these seemingly wasteful projects stimulate the economy. Fine. But why not stimulate the economy by supporting things we as a society believe in? Things like anti-aging research.

Libertarians discount societal interests in favor of individual freedom. Liberals (and sometimes we on the Right as well) tend to discount individual freedom in favor of societal interests.

I believe the two should be balanced. I am an individual. I have rights and freedoms that should be preserved. I am also part of a society. Society has interests that should be advanced, even when I disagree as an individual, as long as society is governed by representation of individuals.

When it comes to tax policy I believe that government should adopt a tax structure that maximizes long-term tax revenue. I can just hear you screaming "What!?" But I'm serious. By keeping marginal taxes within certain bounds, the private economy is stimulated (or is less harmed) which ultimately results in higher tax revenue. The point of highest tax revenue is the apex of the Laffer Curve.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

Applying all of this to the subject of your post, Californians should support the California initiative. You should support it as well. Integrity is admirable, but pragmatism can be also.

You accept that your position is that of a small minority and will, therefore, never be be "the law of the land." Why not, then, seek incremental victory where you can? It's like the right wing fundamentalist staying home election day because both candidates support the "right to choose." Or the environmentalist wasting a vote on Nader. If you think your voice matters, play the game within the bounds set by society. Don't disqualify yourself from public life because you'd rather be playing a different game.

-Stephen Gordon

[Posted by: Stephen Gordon at March 5, 2004 11:43 AM]

Firstly, I (and many other people) don't accept that only a government can perform the functions listed above. Historical and contemporary examples of private, market-based planning and supply of service exist for all of them, but I'll refrain from arging libertarian theory too much here.

I'm pragmatic and goal-oriented, meaning that I'd ditch the libertarian principles in favor of extending lives if I thought that state funding was better in the mid to long term (next few decades) for the process of advancing science. With longer lives, you can always spend more time to work on solving problems of politics and efficiency later. If you're dead, you can't. I'm a strong proponent of "first things first."

However, the downside of an expansive state (its effects on economic growth, slowing progress, legislating and regulating) almost certainly overwhelms any benefit from these comparatively small programs - only a few billion dollars - over those timescales. Far greater damage is done elsewhere to research that might have happened if not for the economic and legislative disincentives that come along with government.

It is an open argument, however, as to how pragmatic one should be when efforts are underway to expand the size of government in a way that directly benefits your own goals. It can be viewed, as many people do, as better to be getting a little money if the government is going to be growing anyway...but from where I stand, a large part of the problem is that everyone thinks that way.

[Posted by: Reason at March 5, 2004 3:00 PM]

Stem cell research is best served by a combination of private and public efforts. The public participation is crucial for several reasons. For one, private appropriation of the research means proprietary knowledge -- and the non-disclosure sagreements that scientists and engineers sign. This is very harmful to the open inquiry we need in order to advance stem cell research. Researchers need to be able to communicate freely with one another, sharing information, so that the entire enterprise can best move forward. Privately organized biotech does not make that kind of sharing a priority, and can even stifle it. Patents in the domain of biomedical research are a notorious problem -- a researcher wants to use an experimental methhod or product, and then discovers that there's a patent on it. You can usually work around this kind of obstacle, but sometimes it is sufficient to block a promosing research path.

Second, there are aspects of stem cell inquiry -- much of the basic science -- that are unlikely to make sense to any entrepreneur whose bottom line is profit.

By the way, please participate in the Stem Cell Action Network, www.stemcellaction.org. We need your help!

Raymond Barglow, Ph.D.

[Posted by: Raymond Barglow at July 16, 2004 1:05 PM]