5 ms·
In all of the examples given, government contributed funds toward the creative process. At no point was the government itself the source of the creativity. Whi
by maratd 13y ago
In all of the examples given, government contributed funds toward the creative process.
At no point was the government itself the source of the creativity. Which makes sense, since those who create are scientists, artists, industrialists, etc. etc. ... not politicians and bureaucrats.
Politicians do not create. Well, that's not exactly right, there are political and legal works which can be considered great contributions, but they seem to come only every few decades.
- pessimizer 13y agoGovernments can't be faulted for not being creative because they are not human. Employees of the government are the creative ones.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- bowlofpetunias 13y agoBy the same logic, entrepreneurs and businessmen do not create either. Both government and business merely provide incentives.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mpyne 13y ago> At no point was the government itself the source of the creativity. Which makes sense, since those who create are scientists, artists, industrialists, etc. etc. ... not politicians and bureaucrats. No doubt, but you could just as easily have said that about the USSR and been right. The inventor of Tsar Bomba was a scientist, not a politician, after all. Does that mean a Communist planned economy is a bad way to advance science? When people are saying government needs to be involved in science it's almost never because they think the government itself should be training administrative clerks to do science and then engaging in research. It's because they want the government to ensure that our existing pool of trained scientists are tasked with doing research, either directly or indirectly.
- avmich 13y agoThere are plenty scientists, who are paid from government grants. Government even participated in training them - in state universities or with federal grants. Saying that it's not "government" which does research shouldn't imply that government can't be critically important in the process which led to research results.
- mpyne 13y agoI agree completely (one might even say violently)