Cool. Something like this article is what I'd like to read more of. The International Exhibition of Young Inventors in Japan was held last week, and India showcased 10 entries. From low-cal biscuits and Herbal Pesticides to Carbon Nanotubes using plant oils .. a wide range of inventions were exhibited.
As part of a joint initiative of the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Department of Science & Technology, to promote inventions and innovations among students and youths and instil the innovation era, CII and DST organised the Indian participation at the Tokyo exhibition.
---
Much like AnarCapLib, the Minister for Science & Technology Kapil Sibal stated that the large population was not a bane but a boon, and all efforts should be made to harness the budding population. [which; is very true]. The minister also said that the task of the State was to encourage the children of today and tomorrow to nurture the genius and give them the confidence to grow. What is the Libertarian stance on this? Would anarcho-cap-libertarians have the govt. not meddle in anything, yet provide encouragement to such innovations? Is it the government's job to stimulate such growth or should it wait for the market forces to take care of it? If so, the govt taking an initiative and supporting and encouraging research is essentially a bad thing?
Posted by anya at September 1, 2004 04:20 PM | TrackBackWell anarcho capitalists want no govt. at all. Minarchists (aka libertarians who believe in a minimum govt) would want to govt. out of everyting that could be done by individuals or voluntary groups of individual. Young inventors would do very well on their own without govt. "encouragement".
The best way to look at it would be to see what the role of govt. would be in the first place. Check out Ayn Rand's essay "The Nature of Govt" in her book The Virtue of Selfishness
Posted by: Yazad at September 3, 2004 11:50 AMHere's something like that...
I think it's definitely somebody's job to make sure these small innovations are used for 'the greater good'. But the government may not always be the best agent for the job.
As a sidebar, isn't a democratic government (albeit rather idealistically) also a "voluntary group of individual"?
Posted by: Chinmay at September 5, 2004 12:33 PMChinmay, your link seems to be broken.
isn't a democratic government (albeit rather idealistically) also a "voluntary group of individual"?
In the sense that people taking part in government (politicians and bureaucrats) choose to join and are not coerced, it may be voluntary. But many of their actions are not. For example, what's voluntary in paying taxes?
How can a large population with a grossly irresponsible Govt. be a boon? A large population is of no help unless they're economically efficient.
Of course, we're a democracy and all that... but IMHO the larger the population the more conflicting interests and expectations from the Govt. Doesn't the current era of coalitions illustrate this?
Coalitions, commitees and the like, they can be good agents of cynicism but cannot create anything on their own. And, the more reactive a Govt. the more inefficient are the people, because they aren't lead properly.
Posted by: Amol Hatwar at September 11, 2004 07:45 PM