Should a government fund its intellectual defense?

[Joynewyeary]

Suppose that, in 1923, a private organization in the U.K. was studying the cultural, philosophical, and political scene in Germany and predicted the rise of a dictatorship in Germany. Suppose that the private organization went to the government of the U.K. and requested money from the U.K. government to try to influence the cultural, philosophical, and political scene in Germany to prevent the rise of a dictatorship in Germany. Suppose that the U.K. government refused to provide funding. What is your reaction?

1. Even if a private organization in the U.K. could have prevented the rise of a dictatorship in Germany, the U.K. government would have been wrong to provide the money. The U.K. government did the right thing: wait for the invasion of allies, sinking of ships, and bombing of cities; then fight back.

2. A private organization might predict the rise of a dictatorship, but no matter how much money it received from the U.K. government, it would not have had enough influence to prevent the rise of a dictatorship.

3. No one can predict the rise of a dictatorship ten years in advance. The suppositions are absurd.

4. That's unfortunate. If funding had been provided, perhaps World War II could have been avoided.

5. Other

[JMeganSnow]

"Why did the government refuse to provide funding?"

[DavidOdden]

We don't really need to consider yet another hypothetical. Neville Chamberlain did indeed sacrifice Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler in the hope that maybe he would spare the rest of Europe, having had his thirst slaked with the blood of an innocent nation. This is one of the great object lessons in modern history about the "alue" of appeasement of dictators. World War II ensued, shortly thereafter. What's your real question?

Please read some of the basic works on Objectivism. Your posts don't seem to show much awareness of the fundamentals of the philosophy: your questions and proposed alternatives are really far off target in terms of what's seriously open for discussion, assuming the basic framework of Objectivism. If you'd like to propose a serious debate where you attack some aspect of Objectivism, there is a Debate Forum here.

[donnywithana]

If this private organization existed, and had a legitimate message, why wouldn't wealthy individuals support the organization with voluntary donations?

[softwareNerd]

Joynewyeary,

I'm going to re-arrange your questions in a way that I find to be a more useful way to think about what you have asked:

1. Can one predict a war 10 years in advance or is that absurd? Specifically, could WW-2 have been predicted in 1923?
   
2. Could some organization with good financial resources have influenced the cultural, philosophical, and political scene in Germany sufficiently (starting in 1923) to prevent such a war?
   
3. If the war could be reasonably predicted and if it was reasonable to assume that such an organization could achieve its aim, would it be right for the U.K. government to have funded it? Or should they have waited for the war to take place before reacting?
   

As for the answers:

I suppose one might be able to predict some wars 10 years prior (which does not mean that one can predict them with certainty or predict their timing). There are cases where one at least knows there is a high likelihood of a credible threat over the horizon, at least if one assumes that "things will pretty much stay the same". As for 1923 and Germany, I have no idea.

I doubt that one could have changed Germany's future course over such a short period solely by peaceful means. It might have been more cost-effective to spend the money on identifying the locations of Hitler and his top henchmen and killing them. If you look at Iran today, the US has started funding some political movements inside Iran. The effectiveness is doubtful. If the threat from Iran is credible, taking out their nuclear facilities and killing their leadership would be a more effective deterrent.

As for the final question, the private nature of the group is immaterial. For instance, suppose the U.S. wanted to kill an Iranian dictator. If they knew where he was and could pulverize that area, that's one option. However, if someone from the dictator's inner circle said: "pay me and I'll do it", that "privateer" is another option. Which one is better is a military decision, not a moral one.

[source]

5. Other

The answers you gave are way off tangent here. A proper government does not give money to private enterprises, no matter what it will be spent on. Consequently, a private organization has no business asking the government for funding.

IF there was a private organization such as you described, the correct course of action would be to notify the government that there is a great possibility of a dictatorship rising in Germany. Dictatorships are a danger to everyone and the proper government would take measures - if not to stop the rise of a dictatorship, then to neutralize the threat after the dictatorship has been established.

Another correct course of action, which does not exclude what I previously mentioned, is to pay voluntary tax to the government to help fund their efforts. Yet another includes notifying the general public about the potential problems that could come from Germany, and encourage people to fund the government (again, voluntarily).

Asking money - from the government - to help YOU stop the rise of a dictatorship is a really big no-no. The problem with it is two-fold. First, you have no business asking government funding. Second, you have no business meddling with foreign political affairs.

[softwareNerd]

The answers you gave are way off tangent here. A proper government does not give money to private enterprises, no matter what it will be spent on

Are you saying a government should not give money to a private organization for a legitimate government function? For instance, are you saying that a government courthouse should not contract out its janitorial services? If that is the implication, can you explain why it should be so? If that is not the implication, could you explain the principle that distinguishes one from the other?

[DavidOdden]

I doubt that one could have changed Germany's future course over such a short period solely by peaceful means. It might have been more cost-effective to spend the money on identifying the locations of Hitler and his top henchmen and killing them.

As for the final question, the private nature of the group is immaterial. For instance, suppose the U.S. wanted to kill an Iranian dictator. If they knew where he was and could pulverize that area, that's one option. However, if someone from the dictator's inner circle said: "pay me and I'll do it", that "privateer" is another option. Which one is better is a military decision, not a moral one.

This focuses correctly on the proper role of government. It's often convenient to say that the proper role of government is to protect its citizens, but that characterization is too open-ended and is therefore wrong. The proper role of government is to exercise the force which is objectively required for the purpose of protecting citizens from the initiation of force. It is certainly necessary to change the culture of an aggressor nation to make them non-aggressive, but that is not the role of government. Education is an important aspect of what is needed to change killers and thieves into productive citizens, but providing education is not the role of government. Strong doors and good locks may be necessary to protect your home from invasion, but providing such protection of your home is not the role of government. When it comes to jailing the thief of killing the dictator, that is the proper role of government. For this reason, it would be entirely wrong for a government to hire cultural mercenaries who sneak in and subvert the perverted culture of the aggressor nation.

BTW, I would agree that the government should not give money to private parties, but it should hire private parties to do (at least some of) what is proper for the government to do. In fact, in many cases it should use the free market to do some of what is required for government functioning -- janitorial service, gas for vehicles, the vehicles themselves (would anyone seriously suggest that since the government needs cars to move police officers around that the government should manufacture cars?)

[source]

Are you saying a government should not give money to a private organization for a legitimate government function? For instance, are you saying that a government courthouse should not contract out its janitorial services? If that is the implication, can you explain why it should be so? If that is not the implication, could you explain the principle that distinguishes one from the other?

Hmm. A janitorial enterprise. THERE'S a new concept.

All I would say here is that the principles of trade still work here. The government requires a service - the government pays for it. But the government is not a bank, so private businesses cannot ask money for their own projects. So be careful so as to not bend the context - what I was saying was the government GIVING money for private projects and what you are saying is the government PAYING for received services.

Another issue here is defining the proper function of government, and the functions which are reserved SOLELY for the government. The government has a literal monopoly on the usage of force, therefore "services" which require usage of force are not in the domain of functions performed by private enterprises. The problem suggested by Joynewyeary does seem like a service to the government, but it is doubtful whether it falls into the spectrum of functions which the private enterprises should perform. But I admit that the final decision would depend on the exact plan that this particular enterprise has on how to prevent the rise of a dictatorship. However, I still do not see a convincing scenario which would not include force.

[softwareNerd]

I will grant that the original example is far-fetched (to say the least). That's why I gave a more realistic example of a private person who volunteers to kill the enemy dictator. If you think a government should not pay such a person (assuming that the person can reasonable be expected to accomplish the task), then let's discuss that.

... what I was saying was the government GIVING money for private projects and what you are saying is the government PAYING for received services.

What is the difference between giving and paying? If you mean giving as in "no value received" in return, versus paying as in "for value received", then I am definitely speaking of paying, not giving. Perhaps you are making a different distinction. Could you clarify.

... The government has a literal monopoly on the usage of force, therefore "services" which require usage of force are not in the domain of functions performed by private enterprises. ...

This seems to imply that you think my example would not be appropriate: i.e. government paying a private assassin. Am I reading that right?

[BurgessLau]

Suppose that, in 1923 ...

Joyneweary, what is your purpose in asking a question about specifics that have nothing to do with the lives of the people in this forum? Are you trying to get at some deeper -- that is, philosophical -- question that would apply to everyone, everywhere, and at all times?

If so, wouldn't it help the discussion if you just ask your underlying question and forget the speculative scenarios?

[Groovenstein]

Ladies and gents, I suggest (with my mod cap off) that you no longer engage this person unless s/he answers Burgess Laughlin's inquiry satisfactorily. As many of you know, this person has started numerous threads about uber-specific scenarios of questionable relevance to everyday life. Burgess Laughlin has asked questions similar to the one he asks above, and I do not recall having seen a response to them. I have my doubts about this person's intentions, and suggest that you refrain from answering him/her until we all get clued in as to what the point of all this is. Again, this is not an official admonishment, just a suggestion from a pal.

[Joynewyeary]

If so, wouldn't it help the discussion if you just ask your underlying question and forget the speculative scenarios?

You are certainly free to forget the speculative scenarios, but the scenarios might be helpful for some other people.

Here's a question: are good governments supposed to deal with some kinds of problems without doing anything to deal with the source of those problems? In particular, are good governments prohibited from fighting bad philosophy and stuck with the task of dealing with a never-ending series of military aggressions caused by bad philosophy?

[jrs]

The government has a literal monopoly on the usage of force, therefore "services" which require usage of force are not in the domain of functions performed by private enterprises.

It is or has been a common practice for State governments to pay or allow bail-bondsmen to pay bounty-hunters (who are private citizens) to forcibly arrest bail-jumpers. Would you outlaw this practice? Why or why not?

[source]

jrs and SoftwareNerd,

What is the difference between giving and paying? If you mean giving as in "no value received" in return, versus paying as in "for value received", then I am definitely speaking of paying, not giving. Perhaps you are making a different distinction. Could you clarify.

I am making the same distinction.

I will grant that the original example is far-fetched (to say the least). That's why I gave a more realistic example of a private person who volunteers to kill the enemy dictator. If you think a government should not pay such a person (assuming that the person can reasonable be expected to accomplish the task), then let's discuss that.

[...]

This seems to imply that you think my example would not be appropriate: i.e. government paying a private assassin. Am I reading that right?

It is or has been a common practice for State governments to pay or allow bail-bondsmen to pay bounty-hunters (who are private citizens) to forcibly arrest bail-jumpers. Would you outlaw this practice? Why or why not?

Of course bounty-hunters can be hired by the government. What I'm saying is that private enterprises can't base their operation on offering such services to the government. This is not something private businesses can do. That's what the police and the army are here for. Unless absolutely necessary, the government should utilize these instead of private assassins. Hiring an assassin is an extreme measure.

But again you are trying to slip into a different context. If you look at my original post, I was speaking of "private enterprises," and of the government "giving" money to them ("giving" meaning without receiving value in return). There is no room in there for "assassins" and "paying" them for bounty-hunting.

[JMeganSnow]

Here's a question: are good governments supposed to deal with some kinds of problems without doing anything to deal with the source of those problems? In particular, are good governments prohibited from fighting bad philosophy and stuck with the task of dealing with a never-ending series of military aggressions caused by bad philosophy?

A government cannot enter the field of ideas and retain its status as a "good" government. A good government that promotes a specific philosophy is a contradiction in terms.

The military power of a country with a good government is unmatched by the power of a country with a bad government; it is the good government's power and willingness to use it the prevents the never-ending string of military aggressions, not its promotion of philosophy.