Sure, funding free software democratically as a public good is rational. There's no law of physics which makes you choose between directly compensating people, and their work being open. Books, music and movies could then also be open.
Unfortunately, to people in non-democratic countries (who, for example, can't choose to stop allocating their taxes to prisons, drones, armies and surveillance), taxes are some awful thing. But in a saner culture, people would rather enjoy deciding on collective purchases.
I wasn't arguing against the government ever funding open source. That's happened plenty of times in the past to good effect and I hope it continues, whenever it makes sense. I was arguing against the comment that I was replying to, which implied that the government should pay for Rachel's Kickstarter so that her project could be open sourced.
Do you want to be put in the situation where you are contributing to Rachel's Kickstarter, whether you want to or not? What if you didn't like her project and wanted to fund some competing project instead? Where are these countries where you get to choose exactly where your tax money goes to, anyway?
Like, do these magical countries with ultrafine granularity for choosing public funding let you make choices like: do you want your tax money to go towards Rachel's Kickstarter? Because if that's the granularity that you want, then why involve government and taxation at all? You keep your money, and you contribute it where you want to. Or not.
What if this enlightened government you speak of decides that the books, music, and movies that it wants to spend your money on for you are things which you hate? Presumably, if that government was responsive to what its citizens were asking for, it would produce stuff along the lines of what currently gets the best ratings/sales/etc. in these "non-democratic" countries that you look down on so much. Although, I'm sure the people in your country are much more enlightened than the people in my country, and all they want is more philosophy and history and intellectually honest and well-researched analysis of current events, because you live in a magical place where the bulk of humanity is good and nice and curious about the world.
Basically, do you want the government to spend your money making the next Jersey Shore? Why not just eliminate the middleman and vote with your own money, instead of thrusting the government into the position of deciding what sort of entertainment everyone wants?
where and when do collective purchases go to anything besides enriching the wealthy or politically connected?
"[The socialists declare] that the State owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody; ...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth.
Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? ... But is it possible? ... Whence does [the State] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitic and voracious intermediary?
...Finally...we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the State. The public treasury will be literally pillaged. Everyone will have good reasons to prove that legal fraternity should be interpreted in this sense: "Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs." Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success."
Without democratic collective purchases, it's precisely the wealthy elites who are most able to afford things. (Virtually by definition.)
What did this 19th century fellow know of efficient public healthcare, roads, the publicly funded research which led to things like computers and the internet? What about cooperatives, a natural way to purchase things which none of the participants could afford individually?
Part of the right wing likes to frame itself as anti-statist. (And are trotted out when anyone proposes funding anything decent, rather than ways to kill and control.) But of course, the "socialists" are the most serious about transcending these violent nation-states. Take the Occupy movements, influenced by "anarchists" (and think what you will about them, but these socialists aren't exactly the biggest supporters of nation-states).
As mentioned, it's hard for people in non-democratic societies to imagine how to rationally team together to allocate funds. In such hierarchical societies, wealthy/powerful elites make such decisions; the rest are supposed to obey their bosses every working day, in their corporate communes. Like indoctrinated cult members, we often have a difficult time imagining how to rationally function and accomplish simple goals as a horizontal team.
'Without democratic collective purchases, it's precisely the wealthy elites who are most able to afford things. (Virtually by definition.)' What? By what logic are you operating?
This is utterly rediculous, and quite frankly bordering on racist. it's often in the poor areas of the 'non-democratic' societies where people learn how to co-operate, and exchange without the state, and rationally function and accomplish goals as teams.
The socialists are about forcibly redistributing property: allocating the fruits of labor as either the electorate or an elected elite sees fit. In the first case, it will be the marginalized minority that gets punished, in the second case, it will be the unconnected poor that get punished.
Nobody is saying don't help out the poor, but the idea that the state is a qualified agent to help out the poor is laughable and there is plenty of evidence spanning milennia that it is a bad idea.
As for public healthcare. Healthcare in the US sucks, but would I rather be part of the private healthcare system or the VA (public healthcare)? Did you not see? As part of the 'healthcare reform bill' all legislators and their staff were required to join the public option. They are busy carving out an exemption to this as we speak.
As for publically funded research, it's horrifyingly wasteful, and all, I mean ALL of it goes to the "1%". Realistically there is no professor that is not a part of the 1%, and their work is built on the backs of a very very exploitative system of labor where grad students and postdocs' most productive years are sucked dry. Much of that essentially becomes subsidies for the military-industrial complex or the pharmaceutical-medical complex (allowing them to shove off some of what should be R&D money off onto the backs of the public).
Don't beleive me? Here is a 501(c)(3) - and four-stars on charity navigator, no less - organization that operates 90% on NIH money (and negotiates a sweet 85% 'overhead' deal) its president makes 1.3 million dollars. http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/330/3304359...
The hilarious thing is this: i'm now working at a different nonprofit science research institute. About 10 years ago, it was almost entirely run on the endowment - salaries given to postdocs and professors were generous, and the president was paid about 1/1000th of the net worth of the company. Since then, the net worth of the nonprofit has decreased by two orders of magnitude, and it is almost completely run off of public funds, in fact private granting organizations are turned down because they bring in no overhead. Now, the president gets paid three times what he did back then. Moreover, his son is about to be employed with us (uh, that's a no-no), as is the grandson of a board member.
There is something about accepting 'public monies' that is almost magically a corrupting factor.
I take seriously any claims that I've done something racist, as racism is commonplace. However, it seems your claim is based on the misunderstanding that I'm referring to non-elite nations as non-democratic.
But I think anyone can see that I consider my country, the US, to not be a democracy; and it's hard to imagine we're a free people when most of us obey commands from a "boss" all day. (The US has a top-down form of government with some barely-functioning democratic forms; our corporations are akin to dictatorships, where power is strictly top-down.)
This may come as a shock to you, but the majority of Americans depend on their employment to obtain little things like food, roofs over heads, medicine, heating, etc. It is not so simple to 'leave your boss' unless you consider dying of starvation to be a good choice. And where do you go after you leave your boss? Oh... another boss.
so you don't think there's a categorical difference here? This may come as a shock to you, but being unemployed is not exactly the end of the world. If you're a good person, there are usually people who will step up to help you out in a time of need, and even if you aren't there are social services.
I recall this has been advocated by Lessig and Stallman. Go far enough in this direction, you end up with ideas like Participatory Economics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics)
Unfortunately, to people in non-democratic countries (who, for example, can't choose to stop allocating their taxes to prisons, drones, armies and surveillance), taxes are some awful thing. But in a saner culture, people would rather enjoy deciding on collective purchases.