Mondays with Murray: Who Would Fund the Science?

Oct 20

The sheer volume of material written by Murray Rothbard during his lifetime never ceases to amaze me. It would be difficult to count the number of papers and articles he wrote over the years, some of which went unpublished.Luckily the fine folks at the Mises Institute have not only collected the majority of Rothbard's published work and made it free and accessible to the public, but they have even published some of Rothbard's previously unpublished work. One such paper is entitled "Science, Technology, and Government", first written in 1959, and published by the Mises Institute in 2004. As with much of Rothbard's work, the lessons are timeless and apply just as much today as they did back when they were first written on Murray's trusty typewriter.One common objection to libertarianism and the advancement toward a minimal or non-existent State that I often hear is the idea that we "need" the government to fund certain activities that would otherwise go unfunded in a free market. Cancer research, space exploration, and stem cell research are among the activities the objectors will often cite as needing government funding, as they serve purposes that are too vital to mankind to be left to that nasty, ruthless market. The general question seems to be another iteration of the "Roads Objection". Essentially they are asking, "Who will fund the science?"As he's occasionally known to do, Rothbard smashes this myth head on:

The crucial economic question, and one of the most important social questions, is the allocation of resources: where should the various and numerous productive factors: land, labor, or capital, be allocated, and how much of each type to each use? This is the "economic problem," and all social questions must deal with it.The important question of American science and technology is also a problem of the allocation of resources. Thus: our expanding technology and productivity require a great many scientists, researchers, engineers, etc. It also requires many different types of resources to be invested in research and development. But our economy also requires many, many other goods and services, and many other types of investment, all of which are essential to its smooth functioning. It requires, for example, transportation to move goods, production lines to manufacture them, telephone operators and repairman to staff our giant communications network. It even requires paper manufacturers and paper distributors—for how can a modern economy—including a scientific research staff operate without paper? These are just some of the infinite number of goods and services that go to make up a functioning economy.This fact of reality, then, must be faced: if there are to be more scientists, or more scientific research, then there must be less people and less resources available for producing all the other goods and services of the economy. The crucial question, then, is: how much? How many people and how much capital are to be funneled into each of the various occupations, including science and technology?

The problem is not that the government can't physically fund scientists or scientific research. It obviously can, and does. But without the pricing system inherent in a market, how could a politician or bureaucrat possibly know how much money, and which resources, should fund not just science overall, but which specific areas of science and technology, and in what amount? How should research be pursued? What areas truly are the most vital to research?The politician or bureaucrat - even in the rare case that he may be well-intentioned - has no method whatsoever to determine such things other than mere guesses. As "educated" as those guesses may be, they are still guesses. A free market does not need to make guesses. The point where the availability of certain resources intersects with the needs and wants of individuals in the market place creates the price of a certain good or service. Only these prices can guide humans to make the proper decisions regarding production of any good or service, whether it's chicken wings, bath soap, or scientific research.

One of the great, if often unsung, merits of the free enterprise economy is that it alone can insure a smooth, rational distribution and allocation of productive resources. Through the free price systems, consumers signal laborers, capitalists, and businessmen on which occupations are most urgently needed, and the intricate, automatic workings of the price system convey these messages to everyone, thereby creating an efficient, smoothly working economy. There is one and only one alternative to voluntary direction under a free price system: and that is government dictation. And this dictation is not only bad because it violates the tradition of individual freedom and free enterprise on which American greatness is built; it is also bad because it is inevitably inefficient and self-destructive. For while government intervention can and does hamper the economic system in its job of satisfying consumer demand, it cannot force the economy to follow its own demands efficiently. For piecemeal government intervention can only disrupt an economy and defeat its own ends; while overall central planning, by destroying the price system, robs itself of the possibility of rational economic calculation. Lacking a free price system, it cannot ever satisfy the desires of either consumers or its own planners, for it will not be able to allocate the infinite number and types of labor and capital resources with any degree of efficiency.

As always, Murray never pursues an argument on the basis of pure economic efficiency. He intentionally intermingles the economic case with the moral case for freedom in all areas.

There are other considerations: we must recognize, for example, that only a free market is compatible with the free choice by every man of his own occupation. A governmentally-run economy must entail government planning of labor as well as of other resources–which means, ultimately, that people must be told what jobs (and where) they can work and at what they cannot. If the free market is prevented from offering its voluntary inducements of higher wages in those occupations and areas that are most needed by the consumers, and thereby from shifting labor peacefully while permitting every man to work at the job he likes best, then government must dictate every man's type and place of work, and we must all become slaves of the State.

Anybody who has read some of Rothbard's more intricate works such as Man, Economy, and State or Conceived in Libertycan attest that he is not afraid to go into extraordinary detail on many subjects, and he does so here. Not content to let the statist objectors brush his basic economic and moral arguments off with a standard "Utopian!" charge, Rothbard goes into more detail regarding specific areas of scientific research, including military research, atomic energy, and automation.I feel these subjects deserve further exploration, more so than could be provided in this edition of Mondays with Murray alone, but in future editions I will further explore some of these area , and just how the market might act to in lieu of government funding.Yes folks, that's what we call a "cheap plug". See y'all next week!Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!