How would war be funded in an Objectivist society? How would it prevent Enron situations, a result of a mixed economy’s foreign policy?
Payment for governmental services would be voluntary in an Objectivist society: see “Government Financing in a Free Society” in VOS. What is an “Enron situation”?
In the model of financing by corporate sponsorship, wars could be subsidized, at least in the beginning, by news media outlets, who would benefit from an increasing number of viewers:
“Public interest in the Iraq war peaked during the conflict’s early phase in the spring of 2003, and began to decline after the Pentagon declared an end to major combat operations.”
No, war is not entertainment. Wars should be financed by those who wish to fight them. That is to say, wars are financed by citizen’s voluntary funding.
No, war is not entertainment. Wars should be financed by those who wish to fight them. That is to say, wars are financed by citizen’s voluntary funding.
We agree that funding for war and government should be entirely voluntary. But if any donations are going to be accepted, what non-arbitrary rule would government set for allowing some gifts but rejecting others?
Should a distinction be made between individual and corporate contributions, permitting the former and not the latter? On what grounds? That the motives of individuals tend to be more virtuous than those of boards of directors?
Or should parties that stand to benefit directly from war be excluded from donating? Thus the Republic of Freedonia, at war with the People’s Republic of Bananaland, might refuse a gift from the Acme Fruit Company because the toppling of Bananaland’s dictatorship would mean Acme’s right to own plantations in Bananaland.
But then to be consistent Freedonia would also have to refuse individual donations from the president of Acme, its workers, its stockholders and perhaps a large number of its sub-contractors. This could get as complicated as McCain-Feingold.
Or should parties that stand to benefit directly from war be excluded from donating? Thus the Republic of Freedonia, at war with the People’s Republic of Bananaland, might refuse a gift from the Acme Fruit Company because the toppling of Bananaland’s dictatorship would mean Acme’s right to own plantations in Bananaland.
But then to be consistent Freedonia would also have to refuse individual donations from the president of Acme, its workers, its stockholders and perhaps a large number of its sub-contractors.
This is an obvious reference to Operation PBSUCCESS. I have been meaning to research into this dark period in U.S. history more but I have not gotten around to it yet. To me, this issue is very different from individuals who want to fund wars because they expect them to be amusing. Instead, there could be a very legitimate reason to finance the toppling of Bananaland’s dictatorship. For example, preventing the nationalization of the private property of U.S. based corporations.
This could get as complicated as McCain-Feingold.
I think that you have taken sNerd way out of context with this analysis.
No, war is not entertainment. Wars should be financed by those who wish to fight them.
By this, I pretty certain that he meant “should” in the moral sense. That is, individuals should not fund wars because they are entertaining. Instead, they should fund them to protect individual rights.
This is an obvious reference to Operation PBSUCCESS. I have been meaning to research into this dark period in U.S. history more but I have not gotten around to it yet. To me, this issue is very different from individuals who want to fund wars because they expect them to be amusing. Instead, there could be a very legitimate reason to finance the toppling of Bananaland’s dictatorship. For example, preventing the nationalization of the private property of U.S. based corporations.
I think that you have taken sNerd way out of context with this analysis.
By this, I pretty certain that he meant “should” in the moral sense. That is, individuals should not fund wars because they are entertaining. Instead, they should fund them to protect individual rights.
I hope I have not taken anyone out of context. I’m simply trying to understand the objection to war funding by news media outlets.
Let’s look at the statement, “War is not entertainment.” From my perspective, I couldn’t agree more. Hearing about mass destruction and killing is anything but pleasant.
However, it cannot be denied that military engagements provide considerable entertainment to a large segment of the masses. I remember walking into a bar during the first Gulf War and being surrounded by cheering men as CNN showed videos of U.S. rockets delivering their payloads to targets in Iraq.
But even if we put that audience aside, there are still millions more who will tune in for the informational value of war coverage. Either way, news organizations will enjoy much larger audiences during wartime than during peacetime.
So if a nation’s participation in a war is moral to begin with, what is wrong with a corporation improving its bottom line by helping to fund that war?
And, similarly, why couldn’t networks fund police departments in return for getting footage of criminals being busted?
Is it really shameful to make a profit this way?
So if a nation’s participation in a war is moral to begin with, what is wrong with a corporation improving its bottom line by helping to fund that war?
Now that we have the explicit and unambiguous context that the war being financed is a just war (presumably according to Objectivist principles), then I see nothing wrong with a large media corporation financing the war, even if they are doing so to increase their ratings. Needless to say, this is of course so long as the media does not interfer with the efforts of the armed forces.
If instead a media mogul is knowingly financing an unjust war, then this is immoral and possibly criminal depending on the extent of the injustice. I see this as no different than a television channel financing a murder, rape or robbery inexchange for permission to be able to broadcast the heinous crime.
Payment for governmental services would be voluntary in an Objectivist society: see “Government Financing in a Free Society” in VOS. What is an “Enron situation”?
I’ve read that article in VOS. I just wanted to see if I could get more information here.
By “Enron situation”, I meant a situation in which business attempts to use military force to control foreign markets. If a very wealthy person or a corporation pays a considerable sum of money to the armed forces, would they be able to direct the armed forces, even if their reason is irrational? What is to stop them? Who is to decide?
By “Enron situation”, I meant a situation in which business attempts to use military force to control foreign markets.
Okay; but why do you call it an “Enron situation” rather than a “Apple Computer” situation? I just didn’t understand the name. Did you mean “End Run” situation?
Okay; but why do you call it an “Enron situation” rather than a “Apple Computer” situation? I just didn’t understand the name. Did you mean “End Run” situation?
Some people think Enron has some connection to our troops being in Iraq. I don’t know if that assertion is true though.
Anyway, I’d just like to know what would prevent war funders from using the American military to initiate force?
Some people think Enron has some connection to our troops being in Iraq.
Oh, okay. There is no merit to that claim.
Anyway, I’d just like to know what would prevent war funders from using the American military to initiate force?
The government controls the military. It’s not that private individuals go out and pay thugs to beat up on people: the use of force is under the control of objective law. It’s just that funding is voluntary, and could include businesses.
I believe in limited government as much as the next guy…the next non Lib guy that is. But there are still certain things that the government should be able to do. The idea is limited government, not no government. Government should have a set bunch of responsibilities and be allowed to deal with those responsibilities. One of those should be for National Defense. The government should be allowed to raise and support finanacially a military that protects national interests.. This idea that war and troops should be part of some Objective law is absurd.
This idea that war and troops should be part of some Objective law is absurd.
What’s absurd, the idea that the use of force should be under the control of an objective system of laws?