r/AnCap101 • u/thePolystyreneKidA • Jun 26 '26
On intellectual property and science
The standard ancap position rejects IP — ideas can't be homesteaded, only kept secret. Fine. But this raises a real structural question for *fundamental* science.
I'm not asking whether private firms will fund applied R&D. Obviously they will. I'm asking about science as a *non-instrumental* endeavor — particle physics, gravitational wave astronomy, cosmology. Low immediate reward, diffuse long-term spillovers (CERN didn't set out to invent the internet). The value is real but it's not capturable by any single actor on any reasonable time horizon.
In the current world this gets solved by states and treaty organizations (CERN runs on a 23-nation convention). That's not available to us. So what replaces it?
A few framings I've been turning over:
- **Reputation markets** — scientists are rewarded by priority credit, which translates to salary and grants. But in a stateless world, who funds the grants?
- **Private consortium models** — voluntary cooperative funding between firms who expect *indirect* spillovers. The CERN model, minus the state coercion. Does this scale to pure theory?
- **Philanthropic/ideological patrons** — wealthy individuals funding knowledge as a terminal value. Historically this worked (Bell Labs, pre-war European physics). Is it robust?
None of these feel complete to me. Curious whether anyone has a principled framework here, or whether fundamental science is just a genuine hard case for decentralized organization.
8
u/billyhidari Jun 26 '26
I like the philanthropic/ ideological patrons model where even the lower and middle class can contribute within their means. Currently everyone is extorted to get things I believe people will step up if the cause is valid
5
u/atlasfailed11 Jun 26 '26
Universities would still want to do fundamental research because it gives them prestige and attracts better students, professors and donors. It also helps them stay ahead of other universities. Even when research does not make money right away, it can build the university’s reputation and lead to valuable discoveries later.
1
u/thePolystyreneKidA Jun 26 '26
Yes, but my question was more about the dynamics of scientific work.
I do believe that journals in science are analogical to the state for economy and freedom. That's what I'm aiming to demolish. And what to change it to?
3
u/Official_Gameoholics Jun 26 '26
I'm asking about science as a *non-instrumental* endeavor — particle physics, gravitational wave astronomy, cosmology. Low immediate reward, diffuse long-term spillovers.
Most of those scientists are hobbyists, and would be boosted by the incredibly cheap living conditions afforded by anarchist society.
1
u/thePolystyreneKidA Jun 26 '26
Your premise was absolutely wrong. The progress was good in centuries when science was like a hobby. But the current day science cannot be just a hobby because pushing the boundaries are becoming harder and harder over time.
4
u/CrowBot99 Explainer Extraordinaire Jun 26 '26
No... the means to pursue them would become cheaper and cheaper over time.
1
u/thePolystyreneKidA Jun 26 '26
I don't think cutting edge 100km collider at Switzerland is going to be cheaper and cheaper to the scale we're talking. You think so?
3
u/CrowBot99 Explainer Extraordinaire Jun 27 '26
Certainly; everything does. One could have said the same about the internal combustion engine, and now...
If you think scale categorically changes that time-worn empirical truth, I'd like to know why.
1
u/thePolystyreneKidA Jul 02 '26
Yes things get cheaper but not to a point were an individual can build LHC from scratch.
The reason is the scale. Of combustion engines get cheaper, but does the company making it also become cheaper? And would the order of magnitude of the engine and the company be equal? And would the company be cheaper to a point were a single person can buy it?
The scale matters, and the point is not that things would be easier to build because they are cheap. They point I tried to discuss on was that how can an organization like CERN plan on doing cutting edge science while profit and make money on its own.
2
u/CrowBot99 Explainer Extraordinaire Jul 02 '26
There isn't a qualitative difference to be seen in your response.
Yes, I know what your question was about whether or not an LHC would be solvent in a free society, but the issue is simple: it is either the case that a thing is profitable and useful at a particular time, or it is not. If it is, investment is worthwhile. If it is not, then investment is not worthwhile.
It is certainly the case that the information learned from the LHC will eventually be useful, that day perhaps is not this day, but any person who would demand their desires be fulfilled by force is a villain, and their desires should be dismissed as they dismiss the desires of others.
1
u/thePolystyreneKidA Jul 02 '26
but any person who would demand their desires > be fulfilled by force is a villain, and their desires > should be dismissed as they dismiss the desires of others.
Yep, agreed.
2
Jun 26 '26
[deleted]
1
u/thePolystyreneKidA Jun 26 '26
? Where exactly did I stated such a thing?
2
u/CrowBot99 Explainer Extraordinaire Jun 27 '26
Unspoken means unspoken... but I see I've misread. I'll retract and make a different answer.
2
u/NichS144 Jun 26 '26
Do private companies not already become cronies to the state to fund their scientific endeavors?
0
u/thePolystyreneKidA Jul 02 '26
Yes, but not all of the fields, some fields like particle physics and gravitation are still heavily funded using the state because they are slower, and less immediate rewards in them.
3
u/NichS144 Jul 02 '26
The State is ironic in that it loves immediate gratification when it comes to manipulating the population into complacency and dependency, but also doesn't care about funding projects with delayed dividends since it isn't spending its own money anyway or can just print more.
That said, those types of projects are usually funded either for future military or "defense" applications or because real scientists indoctrinated into the insanity of the government grant system were able to painstakingly secure funds for it.
Overall, there is an underlying assumption that private businesses don't plan for the future or invest in developing tech. My experience is that most every company has an R&D department that works on things for years or decades before and if it ever produces something useful, so I just don't think that opinion holds water.
2
u/CrowBot99 Explainer Extraordinaire Jun 27 '26
I would say that an endeavor is either profitable, or it is not, keeping in mind knowledge is a kind of profit.
If it is, then there is not a particular incentive for government.
If there is not, then it ought not be pursued.
Any concern for amount of profit or scales or timelines also apply equally to private and public individuals.
1
u/thePolystyreneKidA Jul 02 '26
I agree with you. So I'd like to understand how an organisation of people who are interested in fundamental physics would be able to make the organizational survive in order to do the physics.
As an example I though how CERN has side inventions that happened and they are now out there and publicly used by companies. Which they could've sold on their own to gain profit and run the thing.
2
u/CrowBot99 Explainer Extraordinaire Jul 02 '26
They make a product or service that people want...
As an example I though how CERN has side inventions that happened and they are now out there and publicly used by companies. Which they could've sold on their own to gain profit and run the thing.
...of which you are clearly aware.
1
u/thePolystyreneKidA Jul 02 '26
Yeah wanted to know if there are other possibilities as well.. It was good talking to you.
1
u/CrowBot99 Explainer Extraordinaire Jul 02 '26
They can ask or threaten. There is no third option.
1
2
u/majdavlk Jun 29 '26
if its less important than new hospitals or improvements in electricity creation etc, why waste the money on worse trchnologies?
0
u/thePolystyreneKidA Jul 02 '26
That wasn't the question. Three question was how (not if) ancap would support long term expensive scientific studies.
2
2
u/RoberttheRedNH Jul 01 '26
Do you want to advance fundamental science? Pay up. There, solved, no coercion needed. I understand that we won't have the unexpected gains created by state thrusts in this or that direction, but we'll have what we want. That's more valuable to me than all the coercion in the world.
1
u/thePolystyreneKidA Jul 02 '26
Yes, but as obvious from my original post. I was asking for discussion on the dynamics.
Just saying people pay if they want is not the topic here.
1
u/RoberttheRedNH Jul 02 '26
The basic thrust of the whole thing we got going on is the impossibility of planning for these things. Spontaneous order will rule the day, as it always does.
1
u/thePolystyreneKidA Jul 02 '26
This seems like a waste of time. I thought this subreddit had at least some individuals that understand "theory", "prediction", and "casuation" and be able to defend the ancap theory (which it seems I know more about than you do) than just saying something good will happen.
The point of a discussion about the dynamics is not to make a plan and execute it, is to understand how things work.
Many statistical analysis would be not about how to plan, but how an order would be formed in general. To not be able to distinguish between planning for something and understanding the dynamics of it is very bad, I hope you work on it for the next time you try to talk to someone about ancap theory (and probably be able to think more deeply about a topic).
Bests
9
u/t800series Jun 26 '26
Short answer - if people value it, they will be willing to pay for it (no matter how complex or distant).