From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Jul 05 1999 - 14:46:00 MDT
> Bureaucracies virtually never produce anything useful.
How wrong you are 'o libertarian one! :-)
I will simply cite the history of the human genome project.
When the HGP was started (circa 1985), nobody thought it
was possible. So picking a number out of a hat, they picked
2005 as a reasonable completion date.
For about 5 years nothing happened because the technology did
not exist to do it. In the early 1990's they decided that
substantial progress needed to be made in the underlying
technologies, so NIH funded a series of development projects.
That lead to 3-5 labs developing the basic improvements and
prototypes of the capillary sequencing apparatus that are
now being sold by Molecular Dynamics and Perkin Elmer/
Applied Biosystems. [A clear case of government funded
technologies migrating to industrial production.]
When it became clear (after ~5-7 years of R&D), what the
capacities of the machines were, the government revised
its completion target date to 2003.
Perkin Elmer decided that its machines could provide an
interesting business oportunity to get into the health
care business (a growth industry) and together with
Craig Venter (from Human Genome Sciences & The Institute
for Genomic Research -- the people who sequenced the first
bacterial genomes), founded Celera and said that they would
sequence the genome by 2001.
The government "bureaucracy", non-plused by such brashness
(and the concern that a private company might patent key
portions of the human genome), accelerated its time table,
and has issued contracts to the most productive labs currently
in operation to get 90% of the genome done by next year!
So, what was to have been a ~20 year, $2-3 billion dollar
project is coming in ahead of schedule and under budget.
I will allow that industry competition has helped the
schedule along, but it took some highly motivated and
visionary individuals (Dr. Watson being a key player)
saying something is possible and desirable, convincing
the government "bureaucracy" to make a long term
commitment to a project whose feasibility and results
were substantially doubtable to produce a result
which will be critical for your long term health
and well-being!
Government bureaucracies *do work*, in situations where
the economic justifications for projects cannot be
made in industry (who have to watch the bottom line).
Given that situation, you have to allow for a higher
failure rate among the things that government bureaucracies
attempt. This is why the congressional criticisms of
"stupid" or "failed" projects can be counterproductive
in the long term. If it were an "assured success" a business
would have done it before the government even thought
about doing it.
I would add that much of the Web as we know it today
would not exist (or would have been significantly delayed),
if DARPA (a government agency) hadn't funded the development
of the TCP/IP protocols back in the '60s. We also
probably wouldn't have the fast computers as fast as
those currently on your desk have if NASA hadn't pushed for
miniaturization and integrated circuits in the race to the moon.
We certainly wouldn't have solar cells, that if prices continue
to decline, you should be able to install in for your own
home power system within 10 years, freeing yourself from the
local electrical monopoly, if the government had not for
may years funded their R&D.
Yes, 'o Libertarian-Wan, governments & bureaucracies
are universally bad...
The solution to the DMV problem is to introduce competition.
[I assume that brothels will be in competition with each
other so they would never end up looking like the DMV. :-)]
Now, switching tracks entirely, industry and/or competition is
not a universal good!
In a highly competitive environment, you cannot make the
investments necessary for long term R&D projects. You *also*
generally *do not* undertake projects that will result in
the elimination of your market. What Razor/razor blade
manufacturing company would undertake a project for
research into creams that permanently prevent hair growth?
Only if a competitor appears to be on the verge of developing
such a breakthrough would a company be forced to pursue
this type of development. I've seen some interesting
documentaries on PBS about how GM methodically went about
buying up and shutting down public transportation systems
to increase the market for automobiles. A collective of
companies will act in their own self-interest to promote
the sales of their products. You will not see GM/Ford/Crysler
act in a way to promote bicycles (or mass-transit)!
A case in point would be the pharmaceutical industry and
vaccines. What pharmaceutical company is going to develop
a one-time vaccine, when they could instead devote their
resources to a multiple-use drug? Most vaccines have
been developed either by government "bureaucracies"
or by contracts that the government made with industry
or by non-profit organizations.
On the other hand, I suspect you as a consumer would
generally prefer a one-time polio shot as an infant
to many years spent in an iron-lung that used to
be sold on a per-patient basis!
An industry will not generally act in a way so as to
eliminate its markets, on the other hand a government
can act in the collective interest of its citizens.
The fundamental question then becomes what are these
"collective interests"?!?
> (preserving wetlands and endangered species, for example),
Aha, well here we come to the crux of the problem.
As a home buyer with an interest in affordable housing,
you would like to see land inexpensively developed.
As a contractor intested in profits, you would prefer
to have more land available and fewer environmental
regulations to wrestle with. However either individual,
as a parent, might wish to share some of the natural
beauty of the planet either themselves or with their
children without having to drive 500 miles (804.5 km)
to find some!
> they immediately use that power to stomp on the rights of individuals.
So, do these rights of "indviduals" include the right
to develop where-ever/when-ever they see fit and
therefore impose consequences on the population/planet
that *other* individuals have not explicitly agreed to?
What fraction of people doing *anything* consciously
thinks about "to what degree by my doing xxxxxxxxx
am I stealing (taking without reimbursing) from the
common (generally available, not easily subject to
cost accounting) resource base?
> I am loathe to give them any more power than they have, especially
> without far more convincing proof that overpopulation is a problem.
"Overpopulation" is not a problem. "Popluation" relative to
available resources and or "population impact" on the environment
*is* a problem. It has been a problem for perhaps 50,000 years!
About 2500 yeras ago Turkey was a nicely forrested country, today it
is not. The reason (according to my understanding) is that most of
the trees were cut down to build the ships used in the Turkish-Greek
wars in ancient times. Going back further, a recent article I read
attributes most of the extinction of larger land mammals in Europe,
North America, and especially Australia to the arrival of man.
We do not tread lightly on the planet. Whether other species
do is open to question (comments????). Of course, since
other species are presumably "unconscious" of their "treading",
they can/should not be held responsible for it. We on the
other hand do not have that luxury.
If you have a libertarian philosophy/perspective, please
present a reasonable argument that you should be allowed an
unregulated "free hand" to "modify" our collective environment.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:23 MST