Between World War II and Germany's reunification, people who worked in the car industry in East Germany had no choice but to work on the Trabant project. Not walking in line with the communist doctrine not only meant risking one's job, political dissidents were deported all the way to Siberia.

In the US, freedom of speech and religion are supposed to be rights that are cherished. Yet, few scientists seem to have the courage to speak out against the fact that science seems to follow the Trabant model. Instead, in an effort to impress those who control funding for science, scientists glorify the Trabant model, rushing to attack someone who points at the facts. Moreover, in an epistemology forum, where one would expect these kind of issues to be discussed, those who call themselves scientists appear to resort to personal attacks, offensive language and brutal twisting of the truth, all to prevent someone to speak out on these matters.

But the truth is that science is knowingly and deliberately structured in the same mould as the Trabant. The most important epistemological question therefore is whether this was the best model. Just like we cherish things like competition between manufacturers and suppliers of cars, and choice for people who are considering buying a car, shouldn't we cherish those same values in regard to science? [source]

Science as it's currently structured, fits into the monopoly model, whether you seek to close your eyes for that or not. Science is funded largely by an organization that operates on a monopoly basis: government. Government controls huge budgets for education and the military, where mosts scientists work. Government controls many private institutions, such as schools and colleges, through accreditation, and many private suppliers of military technology. [source]

Science is funded largely by government. Most scientists are employed in education or are funded through the military budget. Government controls the education system to a large extent and runs the military on a monopoly basis. That's part of how society is currently organized. [source]

The conclusion that science is organized along the lines of the Tabant model is obvious if we look at the facts: Government spends huge amounts on the education system, where science is given a high profile. Government controls a huge military budget, where - again - science has a high profile. Most scientists are employed either directly or indirectly by the government. If it looks like a Trabant, if it sounds like a Trabant and if it feels like a Trabant, then the obvious conclusion is that it is a Trabant.

This conclusion is obvious. The question raised by this is why. Why are there so few scientists who admit that science as it's currently structured, follows the Trabant model? Narrow-mindedness? Naivity? Self-interest? Politics? [source]

The term military-industrial complex is usually attributed to former President Eisenhower who coined the phrase back in 1961. [source]

Fact is that the bulk of the funding for science comes from government, much of it veiled in secrecy in military projects. Combine the call for independence by academics with the secrecy of the military and with the bureaucracy that comes with government funding, and how accountible is the result? [source]

scientists' claim of political-neutrality, objectivity, independence, etc, is compromised by the fact that they are employed in large numbers at scientific research labs that are part of an industrial-military complex, holding the world at ransom. [source]

One problem is that there can be an accumulation of secrecy, as the University calls for independence in deciding how to conduct research, the military and homesecurity classify their research as top secret for reasons of national security, while business may want to keep trade secrets for commercial reasons. Combine the three where they overlap and there are vast amounts of government money disappearing from the public eye. And this is paricularly the case of science labs. Another worrying aspect of this is that it concerns weapons that may be of a nuclear, biological or chemical kind wiyth devastating impact. [source]

The military uses its magic word "secrecy" to avoid scrutiny. Industrialists use "trade secrets", "comercially sensitive" and "privacy" classifications to hide what they're doing. It is no secret that this military-industrial complex cloaks much of their activities in secrecy, but what is less known is that it is only one part of a larger picture that makes things even more threatening.

Scientists use their magic word "independence" to similarly avoid scrutiny. Ask courts to do something about it and they'll similarly claim "independence" from political "interference".

Scientists and judges are to a large extent educated, paid and controlled by government. So, who will stand up against anything that goes wrong? Who will even try and find out if something may go wrong? [source]

This military-industrial complex controls a huge military budget that gets approved with in a yes or no vote by politicians who cannot humanly go through all the details. Add to this the possibility to classify things under "military secrets" in order to avoid closer scrutiny by the media. Add the possibility of this huge apparatus to bury details in its bureaucracy. The way it's set up makes it prone to abuse, waste, cronyism and favoratism.

Due to the fact that so many scientists get funded, either directly or indirectly, through this military budget, science itself becomes the playball of greed, politics and pet-projects. The calls by universities for greater independence do not help, they make that what happens in universities simply adds another layer of activities where scientists cannot be scrutinized and be held accountible.

In the process, science gets a bad name. The cliche way scientists are presented in the media is as white-coated fools who are playing with dangerous weapons that could cause destruction at massive scale. [source]

Practical experience in many areas has shown that free markets provide increasingly better services at ever more affordable prices. By contrast, central control in services that are controlled by government and run on a monopoly-basis (or through cartels) causes economic stagnation and waste without much innovation and growth. A monopoly exploits a captive market and drives up prices, while getting away with lower quality services, resulting in inevitably more government control and bureaucracy, as people start complaining about it. The proven solution is to let such services be provided in free markets. I see no reasons why the same wouldn't apply to security services. [source]

My proposal is structural separation. That's a method that has proven to work where unhealthy monopolies abuse their dominant position. [source]

The proposal is to split up the military into multiple pieces, say seven organizations, each of them competing in all areas for customers. This kind of reform should be introduced gradually, e.g. by first restructuring the military into, say, seven different organizations on paper only. Then, tax deductions could be granted to those who pay for services from one of these organizations directly. [source]

If two high profile security services were to face each other on a particular issue, it's quite likely that some agreement will be worked out that everyone feels most comfortable with. In some cases, disputes can take a long time to be resolved. Generally, it's good business practice to try and avoid disputes, whereas it seems common to dictatorial government to start wars in an effort to turn the attention away from their own incompetence. [source]

As discussed, I propose a split-up, which will lead to differentiation, rather than one standard service that was provided to everyone universally. I propose such a split-up not merely for the military, but also for police forces. I advocate anti-trust and cartel legislation to be extended to the pieces that result from the split-up of the military, to avoid collusion between these pieces. Similarly, I advocate that collusion be avoided between the pieces that result from split-up of the police. I do foresee co-operation (perhaps mergers) between one piece of the military with one piece of the police as well as with many other organizations currently active in security services. In the big picture, competition should be encouraged both locally and (inter-)nationally. The availability of a number of different organizations from which customers can choose will lead to better quality services, lower prices, more innovation and efficiency, etc. It's also more in line with our rights. Additionally, when choice is applied to schools, that will in itself lead to better security. As parents get more choice as to the school they want their children to attend, schools will have to provide better security for the children. If a school doesn't act on, say, a bullying problem, children will leave and go to a school that better tackles bullying. [source]

What I propose is a split-up, combined with tax reform to allow people to make tax deductions for the cost of their security, resulting in security services being paid directly by the customers, instead of through a wasteful, bureaucratic monopoly. Furthemore, I propose that the poor get vouchers to enable them the security services they want. [source]

Instead of following the Trabant-model, it makes more sense to introduce vouchers to encourage differentiation in education in physical sciences at both primary and higher education levels. We have to also look at other ways to reform the system, such as integrating education in work, leisure and day-to-day activities. The current model gives a lot of funding to classroom teaching, whereas other types of learning are as much effective, if not more effective. Examples are homeschooling, tutoring, self-study, online learning, apprenticeships and on the job training. [source]

Eventually, prices of services will come down to such an extent that no vouchers may be necessary, but it's hard to predict how things will eventuate. That's the very essence of NOT prescribing how the education system should operate in detail, but instead leaving room for competition and customer choice to sort things out. Alternatively to prices becoming so low that good schools will be affordable (even to the poor) without vouchers, the poor may be less interested in classroom teaching and instead prefer apprenticeships, trainee programs, online self-learning or self-employment combined with on-the-job learning. Initially, the key is to create differentiation, so that people will be able to choose those alternatives that work best, while competition will ensure that services improve in quality and decrease in price. [source]

Another issue is whether families should be able to deduct money spent on the education of their children form tax. At the moment, many homeschoolers do an excellent job educating their own children, without getting any funding from government and without being able to deduct the cost of homeschooling from tax. By contrast, the cost of a computer can be fully deducted from the parents' income, if that computer is NOT used by the children. That is an absurd situation and shows that there is something fundamentally wrong with the education is structured within the educational-military-industrial complex that is supported by the current tax and legal systems. We need to change things across the board, tackling issues such as taxation, education and security in a fundamental way. [source]

The system needs to be shaken up more fundamentally and the financial aspects should be looked at in great detail (considering vouchers, tax deducations, etc). Furthermore, alternatives to classroom learning should be considered more seriously, e.g. homeschooling, self-learning, online learning, tutoring, etc. Finally, there should be more integration of education with real life, specifically work environments as students get older, offering more trainees and apprenticeships, on-the-job learning, participation in research, etc.

How much has our education system improved over the years? Has anyone who completed high school today, learned more than students did 110 years ago? Is there any evidence that the large public schools of today were more effective than smaller schools that were more common in the past? [source]

Families should be able to choose the education they want for their children more directly. Large public schools should be split up into multiple smaller ones and poor families should receive vouchers to allow them to make that choice more directly. Similarly, people should be able to choose the security services they want more directly. A split-up of the military will create that choice and the poor could receive vouchers to allow them to make that choice. Taxpayers should be able to deduct direct payments to such providers of security services from tax. That is how I have suggested such a split-up should be (gradually) implemented [source]

[There are specific] laws (RICO anti-racketeering laws and anti-trust and cartel legislation) that need to be extended to the current educational-military-industrial complex. [source]

Competition will ensure that providers of services will have less opportunity to deceive customers. When there's more competition, customers can and will demand that suppliers make their offers on clear terms. [source]

I don't see any company getting away with killing people under the pretence that their dislike for the person justified that. Such a company would go broke under the litigation against them, before they had even come into action, while the threat of going broke will make all existing custmers leave and ask their money back. [source]

A well regulated military does not kill people arbitrarily, as this would violate the most basic civil rights. Also, well regulated means that what applies to a civil society should also apply to the military, i.e. accountibility, RICO anti-racketeering laws, anti-trust and cartel legislation, etc. [source]

I propose the opposite of dictatorship. I propose the opposite of arbitray law. What I propose is a well regulated militia. Well regulated implies good accountancy and accountibility. That will ensure that bad corporations won't get away with killing people under the pretence that their dislike for the person justified that. Such a company would go broke under the litigation against them, before they had even come into action, while the threat of going broke will make all existing custmers leave and ask their money back. I don't propose the introduction of such companies. So, I propose the opposite of arbitrary law, instead I propose a well regulated militia. Well regulated implies that fair trading laws apply and that anti-racketeering laws are imposed, as well as anti-trust and cartel legislation. Dictators may apply arbitrary law, but my proposal is in the opposite direction, i.e. to let people choose the services they want. More direct choice is principally more in line with our rights, independently of what services people decide to choose. If families are given a choice - through vouchers - as to the kind of school they want for their children, then that is principally more in line with our rights. If people can choose the car they want, or the groceries, that is principally more in line with out rights compared to having some political committee chairman, dictator, wizzard or charlatan making that choice. [source]

It has everything to do with science. Scientists work hand in hand with government, typically supporting its every move and getting a nice paycheck in the process (talking about monetary interests), which makes it even harder if not impossible for other organizations to offer security services in competition with the military. It's time that we recognize the political view behind this for what it is. And it's time for scientists to speak out when they're being used as a mouthpiece for this kind of politics. It's time for scientists to respect the importance of this issue. [source]

Indeed, few scientists seem to be bothered that science is organized along the lines of the Trabant model. It's amazing that scientists who strive to ban political influence, personal bias and wishful thinking from their observations, suddenly abandon all rationality and objectivity when it concerns the way science itself is structured. [source]

Apparently, few scientists want to bite the hand that feeds them. Also, being indoctrinated themselves by the education system to such an extent, it's hard for scientists to remain objective on the question whether the Trabant model was the best model for science. [source]

Vouchers would bring some much-needed differentiation to the way science is being taught in the education system. The problem is that so many scientists take a very political position in this matter and refuse to even consider alternatives to the Trabant-model. Instead, they prefer to work along with and stay within the Trabant-model. They have become embedded in the system with vested interests in preservation of the Trabant-model. They are unwilling and unable to contemplate radical change. [source]

The issue has been brought up before, but scientists themselves seem harder to to convince than other people. Perhaps scientists have too many vested interests in the status quo. Have a look at how the idea was attacked in this thread

The picture that emerges from this is a pattern of abuse by persons pretending to be scientists, seeking to sabotage interesting epistemological discussions here by following a clear pattern. The moment someone comes up with an interesting epistemological question, they launch vulgar attacks, presumably in the hope that this will discourage any serious discussion of the topic and silence anyone who seeks to seriously discuss epistemological issues.

What they achieve, of course, is the direct opposite. They do not succeed in silencing my views. They prove my very point. Scientists cannot be expected to admit the fact that science follows the Trabant model, with government control leading us down one specific road. It's up to epistemologists to point out there is a problem with science in the way it's currently structured and controlled by government to follow one specific path. [source]

What is the objective reality? Fact is that science gets funding to a large extent through government and most scientists are working for the military or in education, which are areas that are controlled to a large extent by government. Most scientists are either directly or indirectly on the government payroll. So, fact is that science is driving around in a Trabant. Now that's the objective reality!

You may close your eyes for this. You may choose to follow a fabricated model that makes distinctions between physics on the one hand and social and political science on the other hand. But that model is in itself a specific political and socio-economic model and, yes, I am questioning the validity of this model, because it's part of the Trabant framework, it's part of the way things are classified in the Trabant model with the purpose of avoiding that the Trabant model itself will be questioned.

If scientists are so objective, decent, talented and multi-skilled, as you claim, why then are there so few scientists who admit that science as it's currently structured, follows the Trabant model? [source]