Department of Energy

I'm a Ron Paul-fag, but I admit not knowing enough about his plans to abolish the DoE.  If it funds scientific research that benefits us all, then I'm not sure I advocate its removal.  ITT: a good clean debate over the merits of the DoE.

There is a market for that sector of R&D but because it is monopolised by the state there is no point in anyone investing in private R&D. It would be more efficient and correlated with it's true value if placed under market forces.

I do agree on that being that the burdon of proof should lie on those promoting social programs, but has any research ever been truly done on whether social programs CAN work in scientific sectors?  I'd like to think the aid helps, but it's never seemed to work.  So, all programs may have been bad ideas, but could they work?  Because remember that a monopoly is sometimes more efficient.

I fail to see how efficiency is a relevant concern when the mere fact of its existence is a violation of the sacred liberties of the individual.

Liberty trumps everything else.

Gov't research is required in some fields, because the cost is beyond what private industry is willing to fund but the results are too important to neglect.

new antibiotics are an example.  I'm too lazy to find others.

>>4
stupidest statement I've read in a long time.  seriously, do you listen to right wing talk radio like 20 hours a day or something?

"Gov't research is required in some fields, because the cost is beyond what private industry is willing to fund but the results are too important to neglect."

Why is that relevant?

Reason forbid anyone might actually put principle over pragmatics.

>>4

Your utopia fails.

If everything was privatized, most people would not be able to enjoy the liberties they have because of the abuses by others with more power. Just count the number of libertarian nations out there. Unregulated capitalism is not a new concept and has  failed numerous times in the past. Go suck some communist cock.