undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMattPalmer108610mo ago0 comments

It is certainly intellectually dishonest to claim that the government funding anything you don't like is a violation of your "intellectual freedom". You are still free to think and say anything you like.

Taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the government should not fund anything, ever, for any purpose, because someone might disagree with it? Isn't disagreement actually a sign of intellectual freedom?

0 comments

garrettgarcia9mo ago

> It is certainly intellectually dishonest to claim that the government funding anything you don't like is a violation of your "intellectual freedom".

Agreed. I never claimed that of course, and neither did the authors. What they claimed is that government funding ALWAYS comes with strings attached, therefore the only way to have true intellectual freedom is to reject all funding. Moreover, the difference between government strings and private funding strings are that only government strings come under the threat of force.

MattPalmer1086OP9mo ago

Sure, didn't think you did claim that, you were just pointing out what the article said.

I think it's a stretch for the article to say that because federal funding will have strings attached it should be rejected to attain "intellectual freedom". But private funding also comes with strings attached. So I guess you could be free to be unfunded if you don't want any strings.

The last part of the article reveals more about the political thinking behind it, when it says:

"When government coercively seizes your money and uses it to subsidize some research program or viewpoint for any reason, it is violating your intellectual freedom."

Whose money is being coercively seized here and whose intellectual freedom is being violated? It's not talking about the universities here.

It very much looks like a typical libertarian "all tax is theft" and "government shouldn't take my money to do things I don't like" argument. Not sure they are really concerned with freedom here, other than freedom from government.

garrettgarcia9mo ago

It may look like typical libertarian argument, but it isn't.

And the fact that taxes are collected coercively is just that: a fact.

Collected coercively by a government != stolen. Taxes aren't theft.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

garrettgarcia9mo ago

> It is certainly intellectually dishonest to claim that the government funding anything you don't like is a violation of your "intellectual freedom".

MattPalmer1086OP9mo ago

Sure, didn't think you did claim that, you were just pointing out what the article said.

The last part of the article reveals more about the political thinking behind it, when it says:

"When government coercively seizes your money and uses it to subsidize some research program or viewpoint for any reason, it is violating your intellectual freedom."

Whose money is being coercively seized here and whose intellectual freedom is being violated? It's not talking about the universities here.

garrettgarcia9mo ago

It may look like typical libertarian argument, but it isn't.

And the fact that taxes are collected coercively is just that: a fact.

Collected coercively by a government != stolen. Taxes aren't theft.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse