Predictable. Lupus, or SLE, is a terrible disease that killed two people in my life: my father and my piano teacher, who was a lifelong friend.
So, on Facebook (which is lame in so many ways, but is really my only means of constant, reliable contact with my family and friends when I am on the other side of the world) I am a 'member' of a group dedicated to finding a cure for SLE. Yesterday, on my FB homepage, I saw a message asking members of the SLE group to petition Congress for more research funding. They provided links on how to contact your senators and representatives. I was the first to post, and I said, "I disagree with governments funding research. Sorry, I won't be calling."
Holy cats, did the insults fly! I was told that I if someone I love is ever afflicted with lupus, I would have a different opinion. I was called selfish, droll, misinformed, uneducated and pretentious.
I then stated that two people very close to me died from lupus, and that the reason I want the government out of the funding of research, is because I want a cure to be found, not because I don't want a cure to be found.
Well, then I was called self-centered, selfish, negative, heartless, uneducated (again) and delusional. It was also implied that I was lying about my father and friend dying of lupus.
One of the things I mentioned was that a cure was found for polio without a single nickle of government money. In fact, I mentioned it twice, and no one took notice. If these people are 'average' Americans, then I must conclude that the average American cannot understand how medical research can possibly be done absent government funding.
I have two questions:
1) Is it true that the research that led to the polio vaccine was totally unfunded by government? I heard that somewhere, and I haven't seen anything that refutes it.
2a) Should I have handled this differently? Other than not engaging these people at all, is there something I could have said that would have made at least some of them see my point of view?
2b) Is there an article on the economics of medical funding from a free market perspective? I found one, but it was in a scholarly journal, and it was way over my head.
One possible error I made was when one lady, who claimed to have a master's degree in psychology, declared me to be "delusional." My response would have been more suitable in the context of a chat room:
Nicole, if you have a master's degree in psychology, and you declared me to be delusional based on one post on the internet, it means that either:1) you are lying and don't actually have a degree in psychology or...2) psychology is an idiotic pseudo-science or...3) you are a shit psychologist
That thread petered out. Here is a link to another on the same FB page, asking if we (the members of the group) contacted our congressmen. On this one I have also made a comment that, I am sure, will be met with the same attacks as the previous one.
Read my Nolan Chart column "Me & My Big Mouth"
bloomj31: Esuric's signature pretty much sums up what I think you're trying to say.
Esuric's signature pretty much sums up what I think you're trying to say.
Agreed. Who said that?
Oh wait: google
I agree, their minds are already made up. But then again, it's the internet, how often have you seen anyone do a complete 180 in a thread? I don't think I've ever seen it happen tbh.
It's pretty easy for them to be generous when they are dumping their pet charitable cause upon the taxpayer.
"It is easy to be conspicuously "compassionate" if others are being forced to pay the cost. " - Attributed to MNR, although I can't find the source. Any help would be good.
bloomj31: I agree, their minds are already made up. But then again, it's the internet, how often have you seen anyone do a complete 180 in a thread? I don't think I've ever seen it happen tbh.
Not one thread, of course, but I foolishly thought I could at least plant a seed. This is something that knight_of_baawa was very good at. When I first encountered BAAWA in yahoo chat c. Jan 2000, I was a terrible state-worshiper. I held democracy up as the highest possible human ideal, and my hero was Ralph Nader. After literally years of very friendly debate, BAAWA finally planted enough seeds that I was inspired to start considering the opinions of the other side.
I posted on that thread hoping to plant a seed. I failed. However, I think that it wasn't my fault that I failed.
Nah bro, you are not to blame.
bloomj31: Nah bro, you are not to blame.
Bloom, are you from long Island?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric: Bloom, are you from long Island?
Lol no, why?
bloomj31:Lol no, why?
Never mind
Esuric: bloomj31:Lol no, why? Never mind
Nah bro, I'm from the ATL
Ever heard of march of dimes? It was an an agency created when Roosevelt was in office to find a polio vaccination for children. Funded Jonas Salk who was the creator of the vaccinations.
To be honest there would be no real growth in the medical field out government and you can only get so far just thinking. People don't realize that knowledge is expensive and time consuming and no other entity has the kind of money and time that government has.
McDuffie: The reason that government funding is shit is because it's wrong to fund anything through theft.
The reason that government funding is shit is because it's wrong to fund anything through theft.
Tell that to robin hood.
LoyalistRevolt: Ever heard of march of dimes? It was an an agency created when Roosevelt was in office to find a polio vaccination for children. Funded Jonas Salk who was the creator of the vaccinations.
The March of Dimes is not an agency. It is a charity. Politicians, including FDR, encouraged their constituents to donate to the March of Dimes. This does not, in any sense, amount to government funding.
McDuffie: LoyalistRevolt: Ever heard of march of dimes? It was an an agency created when Roosevelt was in office to find a polio vaccination for children. Funded Jonas Salk who was the creator of the vaccinations. The March of Dimes is not an agency. It is a charity. Politicians, including FDR, encouraged their constituents to donate to the March of Dimes. This does not, in any sense, amount to government funding.
This renders the rest of your post null and void, by the way.
And, this, incidentally, is one of the few things that FDR did that I approve of. Ironically, he thought that government solutions were the answer to every problem in human life, except that problem that personally affected him.
Praetyre: Government provision of scientific funding will be less efficient (in terms of maximisation of overall public utility) because government will naturally be less respondent to consumer demand due to it's status as a compulsory monopoly on the provision of goods (and in the event it relinquishes it's monopoly to any degree, it is still compulsory).
Government provision of scientific funding will be less efficient (in terms of maximisation of overall public utility) because government will naturally be less respondent to consumer demand due to it's status as a compulsory monopoly on the provision of goods (and in the event it relinquishes it's monopoly to any degree, it is still compulsory).
I think you have a distorted view on how the government gives money out. The scientist that are given these grants do not have to pay the money back. You can't look at this field in terms of economics because the government is not out to make a profit. It is out to be self-sustaining.
Praetyre: To put it in layman's terms, a hot dog vendor who the people are legally mandated to buy from will not be as incentivized to serve his consumers than if he was subject to free competition, in which case people would be able to set up their own vendorships and flock to superior hot dog providers, in which case the vendor is forced to serve the consumer better to avoid going out of business.
To put it in layman's terms, a hot dog vendor who the people are legally mandated to buy from will not be as incentivized to serve his consumers than if he was subject to free competition, in which case people would be able to set up their own vendorships and flock to superior hot dog providers, in which case the vendor is forced to serve the consumer better to avoid going out of business.
Again in this realm of research you can't use and economic analogy. Nothing many come of research or the next cure for cancer could be found its really up in the air. You should be more worried about free-market companies funding scientists then filling the reports with bogus information in order to sell their product but that another thing entirely, and this does happen often my father is a biologist and is constantly asked by companies to fudge his data so that a product can look better or that a chemical does not look as harmful.