When Plunder Funds Physics
Why Even Science Gets Caught in the Looting Machine
There’s a cartoon making the rounds that shows a cow standing on a crate, pointing toward the “Meat Packer” building in the distance. Around him, the other cows graze indifferently. One turns to another and says, “I see Mr. Conspiracy Theory is at it again.”
That’s how it feels trying to explain the true nature of government—even to those who think they’re its greatest beneficiaries. Especially them.
Recently, physicist Sean Carroll lamented on his podcast that the Trump administration was slashing federal funding for university research, including science. He framed it as a cultural and civilizational loss—as if something sacred was being taken from the public. But what’s really happening is simpler and older: the spoils of plunder are being reallocated.
Carroll imagines the state as a neutral engine for progress, a steward of reason and enlightenment. But that’s a fiction. The state is not neutral. It never was. As Bastiat put it, it’s “that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”
Science is no exception. Scientists, like farmers, manufacturers, or weapons contractors, organize politically to extract funding from the state. It feels noble only because the product—knowledge—has cultural prestige. But the method is the same: form a coalition, moralize your preferences, and fight for a bigger cut of the loot.
When Carroll’s funding is cut, he feels aggrieved. But not because coercion is wrong—only because it no longer favors him. He’s the cow who trusted the fence, believed the pasture was freedom, and now sees his faction pushed closer to the slaughterhouse. His reaction isn’t anti-authoritarian. It’s factional. It’s the sound of a priest of reason discovering that the cathedral has new tenants.
This is the deeper tragedy: even the Enlightenment can be co-opted into a justification for organized theft. When scientists claim their work is a “public good,” they aren’t making a neutral observation. They’re lobbying. They are asserting that their values—curiosity, discovery, advancement—should override yours. And that if you disagree, you should be taxed anyway.
The real question isn’t whether science is valuable. Of course it is—to those who value it. The question is whether coercion is a justifiable way to fund it. A value system that needs guns behind it is not enlightenment. It’s just a cleaner pasture.
What might science look like without plunder? It already exists—in pockets. Crowdfunded research. Open-source data. Voluntary patronage. DAOs funding basic research through decentralized grants. These aren’t utopian dreams. They are working prototypes of a post-coercive epistemology. Systems where truth is pursued without extracting tribute from unbelievers.
The cow who sees the slaughterhouse isn’t safe—just awake. He still lives in a system that treats him as meat. But awareness matters. If you don’t question the fence, you’re not enlightened. You’re livestock.