I'll tell you what bugs me about this stem cell bill and what I think should bug all libertarians. It's the principle. If Bush said "I'm vetoing this bill because I'm ceasing federal funding on all government-funded science", that's one thing. It's entirely another thing to say "I'm vetoing this bill because the Jesus face in the coffe stain on the wallpaper in the Oval Office tells me to". Well, in this one specific area (embryonic stem cells, not Jesus faces), maybe libertarians feel a tiny win, but on overarching principle we're doubly-screwed. (1) It's a further mingling of church and state (and a win for social conservatives) and (2) in the grand scheme of things this means nothing as far as government-funded research, which libertarians are generally opposed to.
Jim | 07.19.06 - 1:30 pm | #

If the lack of government funding keeps private donations up and subsequently market-driven research produces results ahead of schedule, does anyone really think the government will sit up and take notice?

Didn't think so.
Jim | 07.19.06 - 1:33 pm | #

This is what troubles me. On the one hand, I don't want to see the social conservatives win. On the other hand, I don't like to play politics with issues. Your two points are very compelling though.
cicero | Homepage | 07.19.06 - 1:57 pm | #

Though in principle I don't think government should be in charge of funding research, in practice if certain types of research are always denied research grants relative to other topics, it will greatly reduce the amount of research that gets done on stem cells at universities.

Ambitious research costs a lot of money, and most university scientists will gravitate to where they can get the kind of funding they want.

If the research is allowed, private companies will undoubtedly pick up plenty of the slack, but it might have the effect of delaying some interesting innovations.
Travis | 07.19.06 - 2:36 pm | #

I want to raise one other slippery slope that the libertarian blogs I've read haven't picked up on much--right *now* obviously we're talking about whether it is a good idea for the federal government to fund embryonic stem cell research (or any research). Libertarian answer: No.

Ah, but to go back and pick up on the social conservative slant--do we believe social conservatives will really be happy with the government simply *not funding* the research. After all, why just not fund something when you can actively criminalize it!

If Alito and Roberts start to carve inroads into Roe, does anyone really believe that embryo protection is that far behind? Then you'll have swung from one problem (should government influence market freedom by funding scientific research) to another (should government restrict the freedom of researchers). I would *almost* rather err on the side of caution and join the liberal camp on this particular issue because I have serious concerns about social conservatives trying to put a stop to all embryonic stem cell research, including private research.
Jim | 07.19.06 - 2:42 pm | #

I am not a social conservative in the least but I don't think it is un-libertarian to have ethical issues with one's tax dollars funding stem cell research or abortion. Having said that, I would rather see a bill that simply protects the legal status of the research but does not mention allowing tax dollars to be used to fund it. When the feds get involved with funding anything they tend to ruin it anyway.
Leonardo | Homepage | 07.19.06 - 6:19 pm | #