Under an Objectivist state, should the government provide compensation to the ones who contribute to it and are harmed in an attack like 9/11 as the government has failed to perform its duty?
What philosophical basis do you have for suggesting that the government should?
Well, if the government failed to do its job - you might want to argue that its responsibility is now to compensate the victims.
But you’ll be dropping the context of a proper government.
What funds does an ideal government have? Only enough to maintain an effective army, police, and courts system. By making the government compensate victims, you wouldn’t be punishing the bad decision making (the money won’t come out of the President’s pockets), but you will be punishing the citizens who will need to pay more for defense.
The proper means to have government accountability is through either the vote, or the personal accountability of the bureaucrats. If you want an insurance - pay an insurance company.
I expect the government should provide whatever it was obligated to provide, were there a guarantee in its contract with the people. Keeping in mind that the government shouldn’t compete with insurance companies, what should be in that contract?
Well, if the government failed to do its job - you might want to argue that its responsibility is now to compensate the victims.
But you’ll be dropping the context of a proper government.
What funds does an ideal government have? Only enough to maintain an effective army, police, and courts system. By making the government compensate victims, you wouldn’t be punishing the bad decision making (the money won’t come out of the President’s pockets), but you will be punishing the citizens who will need to pay more for defense.
But why wouldn’t this same line of argument apply to private companies and individuals? Suppose a private fire company did not respond quickly to a client’s burning house. The company could say in its defense that it only has enough funds to maintain its fire equipment, not to compensate victims of its negligence. If we fine the fire company, we won’t be punishing the bad decision-making, we will be punishing the company’s other clients who will need to pay more for fire protection services. We could then extend this defense to cover surgeons who leave clamps in patients, builders who construct houses that collapse and manufacturers who produce toasters that catch on fire.
The proper means to have government accountability is through either the vote, or the personal accountability of the bureaucrats. If you want an insurance - pay an insurance company.
Fine, but what happens when those who pay proportionately higher taxes and receive average or less than average security are in the minority, and those who pay proportionately lower taxes and receive average or higher than average security are in the majority? The majority will have little incentive to make any changes in the current arrangement.
Under an Objectivist state, should the government provide compensation to the ones who contribute to it and are harmed in an attack like 9/11 as the government has failed to perform its duty?
It’s ‘duty’ is to do everything in its power to protect its citizens, but that power is limited. Do not demand omnipotence. The government can fail for the same reason that practicing reason as an absolute does not guarantee knowledge and practicing virtue does not guarantee success. The government may fail, but this failure is not its fault assuming that it actually did everything in its power to prevent it.
The government may fail, but this failure is not its fault assuming that it actually did everything in its power to prevent it.
Well, that is precisely the problem. It didn’t.
The U.S. government, which spends more on the military than the next 25 biggest countries combined (see chart), had seven Air Force bases that were armed and on full alert to protect the continental United States on Tuesday September 11, 2001. Each base had 14 fully armed fighters and pilots on call around the clock. In addition, there were at least 28 other USAF bases that were in range of the 4 airliners on 911. Many of the billions the U.S. spends on defense goes to NORAD, which is charged with knowing every inch of the skies over North America. Yet almost 113 minutes elapsed between the time American Airlines Flight 11 lost contact and was hijacked at 8:13 till the time United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:06. One hour and 53 minutes went by and the USAF did not intercept any one of these four hijacked airlines. Yet in 1999, when golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet made a wrong turn on its way from Orlando to Dallas, an Air Force F-16 was dispatched and ready to intercept the plane within 19 minutes after the flight appeared to be off course.
The question was:
" Under an Objectivist state , should the government provide compensation to the ones who contribute to it and are harmed in an attack like 9/11 as the government has failed to perform its duty?" (bold mine)
The question was not whether the United States should compensate for its failures. What the US should do is first learn the philosophic basis needed for success. That it do its job correctly is the only ‘compensation’ that is proper to the fuction of government.
The question was:
" Under an Objectivist state , should the government provide compensation to the ones who contribute to it and are harmed in an attack like 9/11 as the government has failed to perform its duty?" (bold mine)
The question was not whether the United States should compensate for its failures. What the US should do is first learn the philosophic basis needed for success. That it do its job correctly is the only ‘compensation’ that is proper to the fuction of government.
In post number six you introduced the idea that government would be absolved of responsibility for failure if it “actually did everything in its power to prevent it.” But such a consideration would not be pertinent in this discussion which, after all, is about “an attack like 9/11.” For on that day government clearly did not do everything in its power to prevent tragedy. You are wise to remind us to look again at the original question. Since the question was about compensating victims “harmed in an attack like 9/11 as the government has failed to perform its duty” (bold mine), it is appropriate to note one doesn’t need the install the ideal Objectivist state in order to intercept planes gone off course. If the present government had merely performed according its own stated policy, the number of 9/11 victims would have been reduced to a small fraction of the total.
I for one would be delighted if the U.S. would “learn the philosophic basis needed for success.” But even before that worthy goal is accomplished, would it be too much to insist in the interim that NORAD, the Defense Dept. and the Executive branch carry out the duties and responsibilities that they have already sworn to uphold?
But more importantly, if the government “has failed to perform its duty,” as the questioner stated, it really matters not whether the government has reached a level of certifiable Objectivist purity. Since government, Objectivist or not, has arrogated to itself the monopoly of national defense, then we citizens are but a captive audience with no legal alternative to the current level of performance, good, bad or indifferent. Therefore, it seems completely just to hold the monopolist accountable when he conspicuously fails to perform the service that he has forbidden others to perform.
I answered tommyedison’s question based on my interpretation of it. I’ll let him clarify whether his question was primarily about 9/11 or about government responsibility.
I don’t care to enter a debate about the failures of the US with respect to 9/11. That topic has already been thoroughly exhausted.
Tom Robinson, you explicitly suggest, without precisely using these words, that the government ought to be omniscient and omnipotent. If that is the basis for your argument, as it seems to be, then your argument has no merit.
Under an Objectivist state, should the government provide compensation to the ones who contribute to it and are harmed in an attack like 9/11 as the government has failed to perform its duty?
Obviously not. The government has no duty to be omnipotent or omniscient. Any claims about the government’s contractual obligation wrong, because you don’t enter into contractual relations with the government. All this talk of the governments duty to absolutely protect citizens from rights violations is unbelievably bizarre. By the same reasoning, if a thug sets fire to my house in the night, the government would have the obligation to recompensate me for my loss because the government is absolutely obliged to protect me from any rights violation.
(post-hoc addon after I saw the last post… I did not steal the expression “omniscient and omnipotent” from y_feldblum. Great minds think alike, especially when speaking the truth.)
I answered tommyedison’s question based on my interpretation of it. I’ll let him clarify whether his question was primarily about 9/11 or about government responsibility.
My question was this:
If the government is based on objective rules of conduct and objective laws BUT in events like 9/11, it fails to do everything it should or before such an event, enforce an inadequate level of security which gives the terrorists or criminals a chance to accomplish their goals, should the government provide compensation to the victims of such an attack, if those victims have donated money to the government?
Here the question is not about omniscience or omnipotence but about the lack of efficiency of the government which leads to emergency situations?
It is exactly about “omniscience and omnipotence.” If the government ‘failed to do everything it could’ to prevent an event, that means that it could neither see all of the ramifications or likelihood of the threat and characteristics involved, or it couldn’t be there to provide the absolute perfect security.
My question was this:
If the government is based on objective rules of conduct and objective laws BUT in events like 9/11, it fails to do everything it should or before such an event, enforce an inadequate level of security which gives the terrorists or criminals a chance to accomplish their goals, should the government provide compensation to the victims of such an attack, if those victims have donated money to the government?
Here the question is not about omniscience or omnipotence but about the lack of efficiency of the government which leads to emergency situations?
You’re question was originally this:
Under an Objectivist state, should the government provide compensation to the ones who contribute to it and are harmed in an attack like 9/11 as the government has failed to perform its duty?
Which now confuses me now because you have changed it from a matter “failure to perform duty” to “performing duty inefficiently”. The two issues are very different.
A failure of duty would be akin to failing to retaliate against criminals by established objective laws–i.e., a disregard of objective procedures established by law. It would also be akin to the government itself initiating force against its own citizens or even refusing to retaliate against criminals.
Inefficiency, on the other hand, may simply mean hiring more bureaucrats and staff workers than necessary. Or using old inefficient paper systems instead of electronic databases and other new technology. Or establishing court rules and procedures that make the proceedings longer than necessary. This may impair the government’s ability to perform its duty–but it is not FAILURE of duty.
I apologize for the amibiguity of my question.
The duty of the government is to provide its citizens, the best defense protection it can.
By failure of duty/lack of efficiency, I meant that what if some of the government officials are corrupt and this causes a major disaster?
It will be failure of duty as well as lack of efficiency on part of the government.
Should the government then provide compensation?
Tom Robinson, you explicitly suggest, without precisely using these words, that the government ought to be omniscient and omnipotent. If that is the basis for your argument, as it seems to be, then your argument has no merit.
Not at all. I suggested only that the government should have followed its own stated policies on 9/11. Specifically, there was no attempt to scramble jets in the vital first half hour after the airliners had gone off course. Yet the Air Force has a long history of sending up interceptor fighters when private and commercial planes stray from their flight plans. The case of Payne Stewart’s Learjet that I cited is only one of many.
I apologize for the amibiguity of my question.
The duty of the government is to provide its citizens, the best defense protection it can.
By failure of duty/lack of efficiency . . .
Apologies are entirely unnecessary. I don’t think there was any problem with the way the question was phrased. Tommyedison is raising a perfectly reasonable query about what people can rightfully expect from their government. Those who have suggested that this is question of demanding omniscience and omnipotence from government are missing the point. Every day people use the services of doctors, engineers, cab drivers and baby-sitters without demanding omniscience and omnipotence. When by negligence a professional causes the consumer death or injury, there are well established legal avenues for redress. No one has explained why this should not be the case with government officials.
If the government is based on objective rules of conduct and objective laws BUT in events like 9/11, it fails to do everything it should or before such an event, enforce an inadequate level of security which gives the terrorists or criminals a chance to accomplish their goals, should the government provide compensation to the victims of such an attack, if those victims have donated money to the government?
No, because the proper function of the government is to retaliate AFTER force is initiated, not to PREVENT force from being initiated.
A crime victim should have the right to sue the government if it fails to do its job during or after a crime, such as standing by and failing to stop a robbery in progress or botching a criminal investigation. As for the prevention of crime, that is what private security and insurance are for.
No, because the proper function of the government is to retaliate AFTER force is initiated, not to PREVENT force from being initiated.
Really? So the government should not be infiltrating terrorist groups and trying to find out what their plans are so they can be stopped before they attack us?
Suppose the FBI had known about Timothy McVeigh’s plans in advance. Should they have waited until he actually set the bomb off before arresting him?
(I don’t think this is a trivial question by the way. Building a bomb is not an initiation of force in and of itself. Where do we draw the line between a potential initiation of force and an actual initiation of force?)
Really? So the government should not be infiltrating terrorist groups and trying to find out what their plans are so they can be stopped before they attack us?
To the degree that such groups pose a known, objective THREAT of force, then they have initiated force. Threatening force is is just as much an initiation of force as using force.