Science, Technology, and Government

by Murray N. Rothbard

In this brilliant monograph Rothbard deftly turns the tables on the supporters of big government and their mandate for control of research and development in all areas of the hard sciences. He begins with a fundamental how do we decide how much money to spend on research. The more we spend the less we have to spend on other things. The decision is best left to the free market. He shows that science best advances under the free the claims to the contrary of the centralizers are spurious.

Genres: Economics, Politics, Philosophy, Science, History, Technology

128 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 1, 1959

About the author

Murray Newton Rothbard was an influential American historian, natural law theorist and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern libertarianism. Rothbard took the Austrian School's emphasis on spontaneous order and condemnation of central planning to an individualist anarchist conclusion, which he termed "anarcho-capitalism".

In the 1970s, he assisted Charles Koch and Ed Crane to found the Cato Institute as libertarian think tank.

Reviews

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the more persistent myths about big states is that they are scientific powerhouses. They may have a hungry population, rampant corruption, a weak economy and a military with long-outdated equipment, but when it comes to science, they're impeccable. Without them, scientific progress would stand still as corporations focused on small and risk free innovations while neglecting theory and basic research.

In this short, yet extremely informative booklet, Murray Rothbard buries this myth for good. His approach, as usual, centers foremost on outlining the abstract principles behind his case before he goes on to tackle real world examples that either agree with him or contradict him at a first glance. Science, he tells us, advances quickest in a free environment without red tape, and stagnates when individual genius is weighted down by rules, regulations, and constant checks on where the research goes and whether it will bear the right fruits. Obviously, a highly bureaucratized state cannot provide an environment conductive to research. What it can do is pump more and more resources into scientific enterprises, thus creating shortages in other fields and still not getting much done. Such was the case in the USSR. The great scientific achievements of this state, like winning the space race, actually didn't further scientific progress at all. The USSR itself admitted that the USA, where most research was done by small- or medium-sized corporations, got more done in the realm of science. And we're not just talking about technologies here that are immediately applicable. Even when it came to basic, theoretical research - especially when it came to it - the USSR was hopelessly overshadowed by the US. Winning the space race was a matter of pumping so much money into building the useless Sputnik-satellite (based on technologies that were long discovered) that the USSR got "results" to impress the world with. Actual innovation was nowhere to be seen, at any point.

Rothbard may be the most important anarchocapitalist of all times, but you wouldn't know it from this book. Even if you've sworn off anarchocapitalism and don't think you will ever learn anything worthwhile from it, you should read this if you still believe in Nazi- or Soviet-Superscience. Rothbard may not have spoken the last word on this subject, but considering how short Science, Technology, and Government is, he came surprisingly close.

Fun fact: No one knows quite why Rothbard wrote this, and it wasn't published during his lifetime. That's mysterious, if you ask me.

[Jairo Fraga · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rothbard inicia esse pequeno tratado, publicado após sua morte no Mises Institute, definindo de forma um pouco diferente do que lhe é habitual, os gastos de ciência e tecnologia governamentais, separando a categoria civil e a militar. A militar ele considera que os profissionais devem ser contratados à partir do livre mercado, enquanto que os civis devem ser 100% geridos pelo livre mercado.

Muitos fatos e análises mencionadas por Rothbard se aplicam perfeitamente aos dias de hoje, inclusive no Brasil. Falácias de "falta de engenheiros" ou cientistas foram propagadas por muito tempo, e os dados não corroboram com esse delírio, que também poderia ser resolvido no rápido reajustamento mercadológico, que aumentaria os salários para regular oferta e demanda.

Diz que não há carência em absoluto de professores, e sim de qualificados, que poderiam ter salários diferenciados, de forma a não se sentirem atraídos por sair da área, contaminada pela educação "progressiva".

Mostra que a maior parte das grandes invenções da primeira metade do século XX, como o rádio, ar-condicionado, helicóptero, insulina, etc, foram feitos por inventores individuais, com poucos recursos financeiros, sem recursos governamentais.

Cita o fracasso científico soviético, alardeado como exemplo de ser melhor que o americano, mas que na verdade eliminou diversos ramos da ciência da pesquisa oficial, por fins políticos, já que não ajudavam o governo a atingir sua ideologia máxima. O próprio sputnik, foi mais um problema de alocação de recursos do que de ciências, pois o problema já havia sido resolvido cientificamente, bastava a construção.

Sugere a óbvia solução de reduzir impostos em todos os setores para ocorrer avanço de áreas de pesquisa e desenvolvimento.

Finaliza com a refutação fácil em relação àqueles contra a automação e avanço da tecnologia.

Um trabalho um pouco diferente de Rothbard, menos anarcocapitalista/ético, e com foco maior no utilitarismo da solução da pesquisa científica.

Tempo aproximado de leitura: 2h

[Daniel Moss · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, Rothbard, who typically just tells the government to go kill themselves, I think makes a mistake by trying to be gracious and offer the government a way in which it can cooperate with the free market. One quick example of where I think he's ultimately wrong is the case where he says that government should never be in the production of military goods but rather the government should contract with private entities who can produce goods for the government. Although this might be better than the alternative (i.e., the government producing the goods on their own), it, at least in my mind, still leaves in place the issue of the government changing the incentive structure of the market by incentivizing the adherence of government decrees rather than serving the consumer.

[Charlie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rothbard says disagrees with government directing scientific research. However, I believe experience has proven him wrong. There is no discussion of NASA, which would be a glaring omission in any work of this subject. But this was written one year after the founding of NASA and 10 years before the moon landing. Would the moon landing have happened if it had been left to the free market? There is no mention of Operation Paperclip, which is something that would challenge his thesis, though that probably wasn’t public knowledge in 1959. There is no discussion of the Royal Society, another thing that would challenge his thesis. Recent scientific projects such as the Large Hadron Collider and the Human Genome Project were done with public money. China is a leader in science and technology today because the government made the choice to pursue that. The invention of the the Internet was dependent on government research. Scientific research does require the involvement of the government

This work is horribly dated because there is no mention of a major issue for us today, climate change. How Rothbard’s remedy of lowering taxes would help with that, I don’t know.

It would be interesting to know what Rothbard would have made of Elon Musk.

[Dan'S_mind]

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or...

[Marcus Goncalves · Rating 5 out of 5]

This work is as relevant today as when it was written six decades ago. Definitely worth it, particularly to those interested in free market oriented schools of economics and sound economic, scientific, and technological policy.

[Garrick Andres · Rating 2 out of 5]

A reading for its specific time. Not wrong information by itself but was for a specific audience at a specific time; nothing mind blowing or ideas different from his other works.

[Miguel Briones · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rothbard aborda el debate sobre si la investigación y la ciencia deben supeditarse al estado o es el sistema de mercado quien asignará eficientemente los recursos para que la innovación se produzca.

Si conoces a Rothbard tendrás clara su respuesta a esta pregunta ,pese a ello la obra es recomendable dado que trata otros temas de manera muy interesante: el tamaño de los equipos científicos, si la planificación para la innovación es lo más adecuado, dónde se han producido los últimos inventos o los riesgos de la politización de la ciencia.

A mi gusto, los capítulos 3 y 4 dónde habla de las supuestas escasez de científicos y de investigación son los mejores de la obra. Incluyendo el tercero criticas al sistema educativo y mercado laboral del científico-profesorado también aplicables a nuestro sistema actual.

[عدنان العبار · Rating 4 out of 5]

This paper-book by Rothbard is very useful for thinking of how to best organize scientific behavior and scientific work in a society. I enjoyed reading it, and I found so much of it very useful. It generally talks about how scientific research should be directed, financed, and encouraged if a government ought to take action in it; and in general, he argues that if push comes to shove, the government would do best to rely on the free-market for scientists.

There is a neat chapter on Russian science, and how it's not as great as we think it is. Frankly, I wanted to oppose but I found myself more and more inclined to believe him. Being a theoretical physicist, I have always looked with reverence to Russian physicists, with their Gamow, Zeldovich, Landau, Kurchatov, Kapitsa, Cerenkov, Basov, Bogolyubov, Sokolov, etc... But all of these people have had their work more obstructed and retarded than enforced and encouraged by the Soviet government. Even their technology was inferior, which for recompensation, had to leech onto other sectors for finance: That's why Soviet space and nuclear programs were the most to benefit, the rest suffering. And even those which benefitted could have done better if they were freer and had less distractions and paper-work, and probably the fear of being sent to Siberia.

I loved the chapter on Automation a lot, especially that it's the main subject of Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano. The chapter counters this mainstream idea that new technologies would replace, and leave unemployed, the people which this technology will actually displace and secure better living and working standards.

The book is just lovely and deserving of being read. If you're interested in science management, give this booklet a read.

[Daniel Vasilev · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great analysis of the role of the free market for the provision of teachers and professors, on the one side, and the provision of scientific research and technological innovations, on the other. The arguments of Rothbard are backed by very good reasoning (he applies the method of economics to the field of science) and empirical proofs in the form of researches, books and the views of member of the scientific community (both academics and independent explorers).

[Erik · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little dated from a 70's publication. Focuses on cold war science/military funding. This is more minarchist than later ancap stuff from Rothbard, so there are some policy recommendations. A major recommendation is to move science to the free market, and have government only sent up contracts instead of directly funding science.

[Kerbes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rothbard is always brilliant. This one makes the same points that libertarians always make about everything: let people live in peace and stop manipulating the market. Has great points on the production of science and technology tho

[Adelina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uma leitura interessante sobre a organização do trabalho científico na sociedade. Trata temas de grande atualidade, como o avanço da tecnologia.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Its what you would expect if you've already read Rothbard. What most interested me here was the practical examples of how the state isn't actually as efficient at technology production and research as you might think. He gives a number of instances of bureaucracy or just poorly designed state institutions misapplying resources or just running bizarre arrangements to produce research which are clearly suboptimal.