Is It Art?

[HisLight]

So what if you do. It isn't your money to spend. It doesn't matter what you think I should do with my money. Nor does it matter what I think you should do with yours.

What if I came to you and said that I know how to save your money for retirement better than you do? What if I then took your money and spent it on something else? What if I also figured that for a number of years it wouldn't matter because of the number of people paying into the system? What if I later realized that the ratio of working people to retirees was decreasing such that the system could no longer be maintained, but I still told you you had to pay in so that you could get benefits even when I know that I can never actually pay what I promised?

That would be called Social Security. A fine program that pays out money for all sorts of reasons that should be covered by an individuals own insurance and savings. The governement has such a talent for administering this program that if you or I did what they were doing it would be called a ponzi scheme OR taking money under false pretenses.

Now this is a pretty objective program. You pay money in, the government pays it back out based on a formula of what you earned and paid in. Imagine how much more political it is and wasteful as well when they administer something as objective as arts an humanities.

The government doesn't know better than we do. The government is made up of people that are no smarter on average than the rest of us. I would argue that most of them have less common sense than the average person. They merely have a big stick that forces us to pay. And we continue to elect people who enjoy the power that comes with wielding the stick. We are ignorant (not stupid) because it is easier to let them have the responsibility than it is to take it back.

The less our government does for us the better off we are. There are few things that they do more cheaply than you could do for yourself. National defense, infrastructure and foreign policy are about it in my book.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

They may or they may not. Either way, you keep up this Bible-clutching Philistine routine and the discussion will go no where. :nono:

So why should I accept with a smile that my tax dollars are going for things like this:

“The Gates” supposedly cost millions of dollars to produce and is described by the artist as “7500 Gates, 16 feet high with a width varying from 5' 6" to 18 feet that will follow the edges of the walkways and will be perpendicular to the selected 23 miles of footpaths in Central Park. Free hanging saffron colored fabric panels suspended from the horizontal top part of the gates will come down to approximately 7 feet above the ground. The gates will be spaced at 12 foot intervals, except where low branches extend above the walkways allowing the synthetic woven panels to wave horizontally towards the next gate and be seen from far away through the leafless branches of the trees.”

 

[Granite]

What's wrong with it? Your taste is one thing, someone else is happy they helped contribute. I agree that funding for the arts should be voluntary more than anything else but your taste is checked by someone else's.

 

[PureX]

The government doesn't know better than we do. The government is made up of people that are no smarter on average than the rest of us. I would argue that most of them have less common sense than the average person. They merely have a big stick that forces us to pay. And we continue to elect people who enjoy the power that comes with wielding the stick. We are ignorant (not stupid) because it is easier to let them have the responsibility than it is to take it back.

The less our government does for us the better off we are. There are few things that they do more cheaply than you could do for yourself. National defense, infrastructure and foreign policy are about it in my book.

But when we look at history, we see that this simply isn't true. This is the big lie that the corporations have been feeding us because they want to eliminate the laws that govern how they do business, so they can exploit us again, as they did in the past. We are returning to the days of the big robber barons - the days before labor unions, when big monopolies could exploit their workers for profit because they could buy off the politicians and the police.

All those laws you want to eliminate were established to protect you from a very real threat, but since we've stopped teaching American history in our schools, no one understands what it was like in the past, or where these laws came from, and the professional liars have us all convinced, now, that laws are bad. Especially laws that govern business, and we're voting for the very people who want to sell us out.

And part of the big lie we're being fed is that we shouldn't have to pay taxes. The professional liars are playing on our greed, selfishness, and stupidity, to get us to vote for their toady politicians. They tell us any nonsense that they think we want to hear just to get their toadies into office. Once there, of course, they'll do as they please. Another part of the big lie is to stir up all kinds of prejudices amongst us, like prejudice against conservatives, or liberals, or intellectuals, or homosexuals, etc. They divide us and get us so focussed on fighting with each other that we'll accept their toady politicians just to keep the "other side's" toady from being elected. And we're so busy fighting each other that we aren't realizing that the only politicians running on either side are the toadies that have been bought and paid for by the big corporations.

And here you are reiterating what the professional liars have been telling you - that you shouldn't have to pay taxes, and that you know better than government what tax money should be spent on, and that we don't need governmental oversight of business. All lies propagated by the robber barons to get you to vote for their political toadies. While they keep you focussed on some outrageous artwork that you paid one-one thousandth of a penny to support. Their toady politicians pander to your ignorance and selfishness by stirring up this foolish outrage and then proudly lead the witch-hunt against funding the arts. And while you're busy cheering on this parade of dunces, they're meeting in the back rooms of government and eliminating essential protections that will once again allow monopolies to form and to exploit the American people with bone-crushing efficiency. While America is busy chasing down the artists and the queers and the liberals with sticks and stupidity, the corporate toadies are quietly setting us back a hundred years, to a time when graft and greed ruled the day, and the average American had to work long hours in horrible conditions for a pittance of a wage. And if he protested, the paid thugs they used to call police would come and beat them with clubs.

So far in Bush's second term he's managed to stifle meaningful prosecution of corporate malfeasance by eliminating class-action law suits. And he still wants to limit the amount that lawyers can get if they win a case against a corporation. He also wants to put a cap on the amount that a judge can award a victim of corporate malfeasance. Ultimately what he's trying to do is render corporations impossible to successfully prosecute. And the professional liars have so many Americans convinced that this is a good idea that he may well succeed. He's already eliminated an important economic safety net for middle class Americans by eliminating their ability to declare bankruptcy. Of course his corporate bosses can still declare bankruptcy, however, and wipe their slate clean of millions of dollars of debt. But the average American can no longer do so. The corporate toadies on both sides of the aisle have legalized loan-sharking and allow the use of government agencies and practices in forcing people to pay outrageous penalties and interest on what would have been an illegal lending practice until recently. And people are losing their homes due to such predatory lending. And it goes on and on. Everything the Bush administration does is designed to remove the inhibitions to corporate greed. And every step takes away a little more protection from the working and middle class.

All this stuff is going on because we're buying into all those lies that the professional liars have been telling us. We're being played for the fools that we are because we don't know our own history, and we're believing the lies. We don't know what our own greed and ignorance can do to us as a nation because we don't know what it did to us in the past. We don't know how hard Americans in the past had to fight, and how many of them died in that fight to get a government full of paid toadies out of office and to get some legal protections in place to minimize the exploitation of the rich. We don't understand how important the labor unions were and are in forcing employers to behave fairly. We don't appreciate how devastating the great depression was and that those conditions could happen again.

The NEA is economically irrelevant. The amount of money you contribute to it is so small that it's meaningless. But the fact that the professional liars have you worrying over this tiny fraction of a penny is very significant. The fact that they have you convinced that you shouldn't have to pay it is also very significant. Because these are the lies of people who want to see you cut your own cultural throat. These are the lies of people who want you to dismantle your own government. These are the lies of people who want to take the place of your government. And if you're stupid enough to fall for their lies, they will do exactly that. They already are.

 

[HisLight]

The government is no less an exploiter of the public than big corporations are. The government does have the ability to abuse the power more perfectly. I have no desire to give either unneccessary power. They are both LIARS.

If you think that somehow the people you elect are smarter than you OR that as a group they have the ability to make better decisions, please remember that their primary purpose is GET RE-ELECTED. They are not geniuses. Some of them have never even worked a "real job."

I never said I shouldn't have to pay taxes. Taxes are necessary. But the US government has not figured out how to put together a plan, administer it and then dismantle the program. Once in place the role of the government is to continue to find ways to make the public dependent on continued funding of an inefficient program.

I agree with you that the American public has allowed their freedoms to be destroyed. The confiscation of property without due process in the name of fighting the war on drugs is abominable. The Patriot Act would terrify the patriots that founded this country. The War on Drugs is being lost in spite of our loss of due process. The Patriot Act cannot and will not make us more secure. AGAIN two fine examples of the inability of our government to take our money and serve a good purpose.

I also agree with you about the bankruptcy laws. However, if we did not first behave like spoiled children spending money we do not have to by things we do not need and living in debt, we would not need bankruptcy laws to the extent that they are being used today. The new bankruptcy law is in essence welfare for credit card and financing companies. The solution is that each of us needs to get off the drug of debt. If we did that we would see that the rate of bankruptcy filings plummet AND we would not allow our politicians to spend money we do not have at the expense of the future economic health of this country.

I don't care if the NEA is economically irrelevant. I do not care how little money you want. When I earn the money it is my property. This country was founded on the right of a person to own their property. This country was founded on the idea that only the essential duties of government should be administered by the government.

The arts and humanities are NOT essential functions of government.

You speak simultaneously of wanting the people to retain the powers that this country was founded on and wanting the government to confiscate my property to fund your pet project. Money is power. The more that you make the government responsible for such things the more power they have. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[PureX]

The government is no less an exploiter of the public than big corporations are. The government does have the ability to abuse the power more perfectly. I have no desire to give either unneccessary power.

I understand. But we have to have a govenment, and we need that government to govern our commerce. Because I can gaurantee that ungoverned commerce will not be a pleasant experience for anyone but the very rich.

If you think that somehow the people you elect are smarter than you OR that as a group they have the ability to make better decisions, please remember that their primary purpose is GET RE-ELECTED. They are not geniuses. Some of them have never even worked a "real job."

Lots of people who are as smart as I am could not do my job, because I've been doing it for some years and they haven't. Government officials don't need to be smarter than I am to do their job. And I'd be a fool to presume that I could do a better job than they can without any experience.

People are just people. A few of them are real scum who are actively looking for ways of exploiting everyone else, but most people are just trying to trade their honest efforts for peace, survival, and some sense of joy and purpose in life. Unfortunately, the scum gravitate toward positions of power because they really want to exploit others. But they can only do so if the rest of us are so stupid or timid that we let them (as we are currently doing). Most of the people who work in government are doing their jobs, and are better at it than we would be because they've been doing it longer and because they mean to do it right. The truth is that in many ways, the government DOES know better than we do how our tax money should be spent.

But like all things in life, there are always multiple aspects of any givin situation. I agree with you that we need to slap our politicians hard in the face with the reality that WE are their bosses, and not the corperations that are currently buying them their jobs. But at the same time, we are fools if we think we could really do the government's job all by ourselves. We can't. The sad truth is that we are all selfish and greedy and if we were in charge of where our tax money went a lot of people would be suffering that are not suffering, now. The fact is that art is a very important and positive aspect of cultural health, and even though most people are too selfish and ignorant to appreciate it, a healthy society should be supporting it. One of the things we need our government to do for us is to recognize this selfishness and make us overcome it to our own benefit, and in spite of ourselves. There are times, and they are important, when the government also needs to slap us in the face and make US be good citizens in spite of ourselves. Just as there are times when we need to slap government's face and remind them who's interest they're supposed to be serving.

I also agree with you about the bankruptcy laws. However, if we did not first behave like spoiled children spending money we do not have to by things we do not need and living in debt, we would not need bankruptcy laws to the extent that they are being used today. The new bankruptcy law is in essence welfare for credit card and financing companies. The solution is that each of us needs to get off the drug of debt. If we did that we would see that the rate of bankruptcy filings plummet AND we would not allow our politicians to spend money we do not have at the expense of the future economic health of this country.

Keep in mind that the number one reason for individual bankrupcies in America was catastrophic medical debt acquired by people who had medical insurance. What exactly are you suggesting they could have done about this? They were working. They had medical insurance. They had savings. And it was all wiped out by one medical event. This had nothing whatever to do with their previous indebtedness. These people are now screwed, thanks to the Bush administration being bought off by the credit industry's huge campaign contributions..The second and third most common reasons for individual bankruptcy were divorce and job loss. It's true that in these cases the previous debt load probably exascerbated the problem, but preditory lending practices had something to do with that as well, especially credit card interest rates and practices that were illegal only a few years ago. That and the fact that our whole economy is becoming more and more based on the "hot air" of paper value. We encourage people to go into debt, and then we want to punish them when some catastrophic event causes them to become unable to service that debt. And as long as it's the "other guy" who suffering, the rest of us want to see him suffer. This is what we've come to these days. We have become the cheer-leaders for the very people who are destroying us.

I don't care if the NEA is economically irrelevant. I do not care how little money you want. When I earn the money it is my property. This country was founded on the right of a person to own their property. This country was founded on the idea that only the essential duties of government should be administered by the government.

I'm sorry, but you're just being selfish and silly, here, and it's right that the government should make you support the arts in spite of yourself.

The arts and humanities are NOT essential functions of government.

The well-being of all of society is the goal of any good government. And art is an essential part of that well-being. Unfortunately, you can't see this, and so you don't want to support it. But that's all the more reason why in this case it's right that government should over-rule you. Think of it like a road. Any given road may not be a road that YOU want to see built. But the government's job is to determine if that road is a benefit to the whole community, not just to you, and to make you help build it if it is of benefit to the whole community. You won't like it, but the road should be built and you should help pay for it, anyway.

You speak simultaneously of wanting the people to retain the powers that this country was founded on and wanting the government to confiscate my property to fund your pet project. Money is power. The more that you make the government responsible for such things the more power they have. You cannot have it both ways.

Everything is a matter of ballance. All the lies that the professional liars are telling these days begin with the lie of absolutist extremes. They tell us that everything has to be either/or. But the truth is that everything really exists in a ballance of opposing forces. This was the true innovation of our founding fathers. They understood that power corrupts everyone it touches, and the only way to minimize the corruption was to ballance the power. The fist lie the liars tell us is that we should unballance the power. We should be all democrat, or all republican, or all Christian, or all heterosexual, or we should favor all tax cuts, or we should favor all anti-abortion legislation, or we should favor all gay-rights legislation, etc. But that's how they get us to vote for and accept stupid and self-destructive laws, which was their intent all along.

But when we let go of these foolish and self-destructive absolutes, we will realize that sometimes the government is right and we are wrong just as sometimes the government is wrong and we are right. And as a result, a ballance of power needs to be understood and struck between ourselves and our government. Sometimes we need to do what they tell us in spite of ourselves. And sometimes we need to make them do what's right in spite of themselves.

 

[HisLight]

I understand. But we have to have a govenment, and we need that government to govern our commerce. Because I can gaurantee that ungoverned commerce will not be a pleasant experience for anyone but the very rich.

I am not an anarchist. I totally believe that a constitutionally limited republic is a wonderful thing. 1 Peter tells me to live within the bounds of my government. I am all for that as well.

Lots of people who are as smart as I am could not do my job, because I've been doing it for some years and they haven't. Government officials don't need to be smarter than I am to do their job. And I'd be a fool to presume that I could do a better job than they can without any experience.

When in the history of this country has it been in our best interest to hire professional politicians?????? I am not a great student of history, but I don't think in the history of civilization it has been in the best interest of the people to be governed by professional politicians. It has only been within the last few generations that this kind of thing has become popular in this country. I value some common sense in government over what we have now. I value statesmanship. I value those who are looking out for the long term benefit of the country.

People are just people. A few of them are real scum who are actively looking for ways of exploiting everyone else, but most people are just trying to trade their honest efforts for peace, survival, and some sense of joy and purpose in life. Unfortunately, the scum gravitate toward positions of power because they really want to exploit others. But they can only do so if the rest of us are so stupid or timid that we let them (as we are currently doing). Most of the people who work in government are doing their jobs, and are better at it than we would be because they've been doing it longer and because they mean to do it right. The truth is that in many ways, the government DOES know better than we do how our tax money should be spent.

You distrust the large corporations running the show. They do it through the government. If you want to keep the problem under control, limit the amount of money the government has and the power that goes with it.

The government is filled with people who are there to collect a paycheck. The private sector tends not to pay for incompetence. There is NO incentive for the government to get rid of such people. I talk to them regularly both at the state and the federal level.

Keep in mind that the number one reason for individual bankrupcies in America was catastrophic medical debt acquired by people who had medical insurance. What exactly are you suggesting they could have done about this?

That is merely one reason why people declare bankruptcy. Today 19% of bankruptcies are declared by college students. 6% of bankruptcies are declared by people under 21. Further 70% of the households in the US have no real financial foundation. They live paycheck to paycheck. This isn't primarily about medical bills. I would suggest that people who have extraordinary circumstances like death, disability and illness will still get through bankruptcy when necessary. However, the primary reason most people find themselves in over their heads financially is just plain lack of personal responsibility.

I'm sorry, but you're just being selfish and silly, here, and it's right that the government should make you support the arts in spite of yourself.

I am sorry, that you just don't understand that I have a right to my own property. Your need to have money doesn't obligate me to open my wallet.

The well-being of all of society is the goal of any good government. And art is an essential part of that well-being. Unfortunately, you can't see this, and so you don't want to support it. But that's all the more reason why in this case it's right that government should over-rule you. Think of it like a road. Any given road may not be a road that YOU want to see built. But the government's job is to determine if that road is a benefit to the whole community, not just to you, and to make you help build it if it is of benefit to the whole community. You won't like it, but the road should be built and you should help pay for it, anyway.

So if I have a good enough reason to come and take your property, then it is not stealing???? I will even agree with you that people do mismanage their money, but it is THEIR MONEY. Your need doesn't supercede their right to use their property as they choose.

I do support the arts, by the way. I just don't think that I should do it because you say I should. I should do it because I want to.

Sometimes we need to do what they tell us in spite of ourselves. And sometimes we need to make them do what's right in spite of themselves.

I don't need a parent, thank you. Been there, done that.

 

[PureX]

I am not an anarchist. I totally believe that a constitutionally limited republic is a wonderful thing.

.... Just as long as they never tell YOU to do something YOU don't like, right? Government is a good thing as long as their telling the other guy what to do?

You distrust the large corporations running the show. They do it through the government. If you want to keep the problem under control, limit the amount of money the government has and the power that goes with it.

Government has to have money and power to govern. And sometimes they have to use that power to tell YOU what to do. That's just the way it is. What's screwing us up right now is that the politicians have legalized bribery, and they have been bought off by wealthy corporations. Our government no longer is representing the needs or desires of the people, but the needs and desires of their corporate sponsors. The problem isn't government having money and power, the problem is legalized bribery. We still have the power to stop this, but unfortunately we're too selfish and ignorant to use it, at the moment.

The government is filled with people who are there to collect a paycheck. The private sector tends not to pay for incompetence. There is NO incentive for the government to get rid of such people. I talk to them regularly both at the state and the federal level.

You're over-exaggerating - you've been listening to the liars. The professional liars want you to focus on the bloating and incompetence so you won't see what they're really up to. If they can get you all indignant about government waste, they can get you to agree with their political toadies when they want to abolish the rule of law for themselves. And it's working. They have many Americans imagining that ungoverned free-enterprise is a kind of holy endeavor that will solve all the world's problems if we would just remove all governmental oversight.

That is merely one reason why people declare bankruptcy.

No, it's not. It's the most common reason that people have declared bankruptcy. And the second and third most common reasons that people have declared bankruptcy are divorce and the loss of their job. The professional liars have been pounding us with these lies that there is some vast abuse of bankruptcy going on and that the only way to stop it is to eliminate bankruptcy for everyone (but not for their corporate sponsors, naturally). But these are just lies. Only about 6% of declared bankruptcies were the result of people purposely abusing the system. As for teens and college students declaring bankruptcy, who's to blame for the poor economic skills of teenagers and college students? Why were they being given excessive lines of credit to begin with? What kind of responsible credit company would be giving a young person with no credit history a big enough credit line that they could get themselves into so much debt?

The answer is none. It was an irresponsible credit industry looking to assess excessive interest rates and penalties on young people who weren't financially savvy enough to see it coming, or to understand how devistating the consequences would be. And when some of these young people escaped their grasp using bankruptcy, they bought off the government and closed that door. What's next, debtor's prison?

You talk about the irresponsibility of these teenagers and college students, but what about the irresponsibility of the credit industry? Of the two, who should have known better?

I am sorry, that you just don't understand that I have a right to my own property. Your need to have money doesn't obligate me to open my wallet.

And I'm sorry that you think your right to personal property supersedes your responsibility to the health and well-being of the society in which you live, as expressed through it's government.

So if I have a good enough reason to come and take your property, then it is not stealing????

No, YOU don't. But the government does. It's called "eminent domain".

Your need doesn't supersede their right to use their property as they choose.

No, my needs don't, but our collective societal needs do.

I don't need a parent, thank you. Been there, done that.

Yeah, I know, the purpose of government is to govern everyone else, but not you, because you're never wrong. *smile*

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

I agree that funding for the arts should be voluntary more than anything else but...

"Should be voluntary".... That's all that needs to be said. Many artists create then sell. This a good option.

 

[Granite]

"Should be voluntary".... That's all that needs to be said. Many artists create then sell. This a good option.

Pushing your taste and dismissing art as "good" or "bad" might be convenient but it's certainly also ignorant. About as dishonest as cutting off the quotes of people you're talking to. :nono:

 

[HisLight]

PureX

I believe in both personal freedom and personal responsibility.

If you want government funding you have to deal with what goes with it. You have to bow to the whims of politics. You have to bow to the voice of the people. As long as we have the mentality that the government will fund the arts, the arts will be neglected by most people. They will take the attitude that they have paid their taxes and that should be enough.

I just don't see that the issue is all that complicated. I generate an income for myself and for my family. I enjoy my job, but I have other interests as well. I cannot go to the public and ask them to fund my other interests. I take my marketable skills and generate income. Then I use the money to fund other endeavors. Artists have that same ability. They can generate income with their art. They can use those funds to pay for less commerically acceptable works. If they do that without the benefit of government funding they have the freedom to create whatever they want without regard to what the public thinks.

If you want to continue the discussion about bankruptcy I would be happy to do that in a separate thread.

 

[PureX]

I believe in both personal freedom and personal responsibility.

Who doesn't? Unfortunately, believing in it doesn't make it happen. A lot of people need some "help" in understand what freedom is, and in taking responsibility for themselves. And this is why we need government. Nobody likes it. It would be wonderful if everyone respected everyone else's freedom, and took responsibility for their own behaviors and how they effect the well-being of others. But that's a dream. In the mean time we have to establish principals by which we wish to live, and we have to establish governments to protect, support, and carry out those principals. And when that government decides that we need to support something that we don't like, we are obliged to do so, because government represents not just ourselves and our own desires, but everyone else's, too. And I really can't see why you think this is wrong.

If you want government funding you have to deal with what goes with it. You have to bow to the whims of politics. You have to bow to the voice of the people. As long as we have the mentality that the government will fund the arts, the arts will be neglected by most people. They will take the attitude that they have paid their taxes and that should be enough.

The arts will be neglected by most people, anyway. That's the nature of art. The lessons of art, however, will be filtered down into various entertainments that are palletable to the masses and spread throughout society that way.

I just don't see that the issue is all that complicated. I generate an income for myself and for my family. I enjoy my job, but I have other interests as well. I cannot go to the public and ask them to fund my other interests. I take my marketable skills and generate income. Then I use the money to fund other endeavors. Artists have that same ability. They can generate income with their art. They can use those funds to pay for less commerically acceptable works. If they do that without the benefit of government funding they have the freedom to create whatever they want without regard to what the public thinks.

I understand the princilapal of free enterprise. I just don't believe that it's the best solution for all circumstances. There are times when personal or popular choices are not the best choices, and under those circumstances we need a more autocratic methodology. No one likes to be told what to do by some external authority. But sometimes it has to be done. I don't really see how you can reasonably argue with this. If it were not so, we wouldn't need governments at all.

 

[HisLight]

Who doesn't? Unfortunately, believing in it doesn't make it happen. A lot of people need some "help" in understand what freedom is, and in taking responsibility for themselves. And this is why we need government. Nobody likes it. It would be wonderful if everyone respected everyone else's freedom, and took responsibility for their own behaviors and how they effect the well-being of others. But that's a dream. In the mean time we have to establish principals by which we wish to live, and we have to establish governments to protect, support, and carry out those principals. And when that government decides that we need to support something that we don't like, we are obliged to do so, because government represents not just ourselves and our own desires, but everyone else's, too. And I really can't see why you think this is wrong.
The arts will be neglected by most people, anyway. That's the nature of art. The lessons of art, however, will be filtered down into various entertainments that are palletable to the masses and spread throughout society that way.
I understand the princilapal of free enterprise. I just don't believe that it's the best solution for all circumstances. There are times when personal or popular choices are not the best choices, and under those circumstances we need a more autocratic methodology. No one likes to be told what to do by some external authority. But sometimes it has to be done. I don't really see how you can reasonably argue with this. If it were not so, we wouldn't need governments at all.

I never advocated abolishing government. I only advocated limiting government to essential fuctions. National defense, foriegn policy, infrastructure. BTW - you mentioned before that I only like government when I agree with it. This is simply not true. I obey my government as long as it doesn't require me to violate God's law. We need to live in a system of laws, we don't need to live in a system of social programs.

You may understand the principal of free enterprise, clearly you don't think it works. Why should an artist get a free ride while I work 12 hours a day to grow my business? How is that you believe in personal responsibility? It applies to everyone except artists?

It is wrong to confiscate money or other property from someone who has earned it based on your need.

 

[PureX]

You may understand the principal of free enterprise, clearly you don't think it works. Why should an artist get a free ride while I work 12 hours a day to grow my business? How is that you believe in personal responsibility? It applies to everyone except artists?

Who said anything about "free rides"? Since when is receiving a government grant a "free ride"? Artists work for their money just like anyone else. The only difference is that the artist is being paid by everyone instead of a few. We've been paying the military the same way since it's inception. The military provide a necessary social service to society, and so do artists.

It is wrong to confiscate money or other property from someone who has earned it based on your need.

As I posted last time, it's not based on MY need. It's based on the needs of the whole society.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Who said anything about "free rides"? Since when is receiving a government grant a "free ride"?

Since forever. That's the difference between a grant and a loan -- a loan has to be paid back, while a grant doesn't.

Artists work for their money just like anyone else. The only difference is that the artist is being paid by everyone instead of a few.

What about those who don't want or require the services of the artist? Why should we have to pay for it?

We've been paying the military the same way since it's inception.

Yeah, and they protect our nation. What are you gonna do -- throw a ball of clay at the enemy? Splash them with paint?

The military provide a necessary social service to society, and so do artists.

And what necessary service would that be -- spending our money to engage in their hobby?

As I posted last time, it's not based on MY need. It's based on the needs of the whole society.

If you ask me, society could do without the work of some of these artists.

 

[PureX]

Since forever. That's the difference between a grant and a loan -- a loan has to be paid back, while a grant doesn't.

Loans have nothing whatever to do with this conversation.

What about those who don't want or require the services of the artist? Why should we have to pay for it?

What about those who don't want or require the services of a military? Why should they have to pay for it?

Why should anyone have to pay for anything they don't want? The answer is because the society they live in needs it whether any individual in that society wants it or not.

Yeah, and they protect our nation. What are you gonna do -- throw a ball of clay at the enemy? Splash them with paint?

Yeah, that's a really clever response.

And what necessary service would that be -- spending our money to engage in their hobby?

It's a service beyond your capacity to comprehend.

If you ask me, society could do without the work of some of these artists.

Yeah, but no one's going to ask you.

 

[HisLight]

-sigh-

We have to agree as a society that art is a essential function of government. So far that hasn't happened.

National defense, foreign affairs, infrastructure, environmental policy, interstate and international commerce, law enforcment.....I think we can agree that these things cannot be done by individuals or by groups of individuals. One could argue public education.

Many other things are funded through charitable organizations. You have not convinced me in the least that the arts and humanities cannot be successfully funded this way.

I guess this is where we agree to disagree.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Pushing your taste and dismissing art as "good" or "bad" might be convenient but it's certainly also ignorant. About as dishonest as cutting off the quotes of people you're talking to. :nono:

Push? Never. I do artwork for myself not everyone else. If they like it, great. If they don't, oh well. Ignorant? No more ignorant someone else expecting me to pay for their art supplies with my tax dollars.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Just get the Government out of the subsidizing biz. Socialism's killing us.

Just get the Government out of the subsidizing biz. Socialism's killing us.

Just get the Government out of the subsidizing biz. Socialism's killing us.

 

[PureX]

We have to agree as a society that (the support of) art is an essential function of government. So far that hasn't happened.

True. And now the discussion falls to "what is an essential function of government?". And lots of peole have lots of different opinions about that. In fact, that's why we have a government in the first place - because we all have different opinions and desires and we would be living in chaos without some governing body to decide amongs these what's best for the whole of society. And that's why I'm claiming that it's appropriate for the government to give a (very) small portion of your tax money to support the arts, whether you like it or not.

Many other things are funded through charitable organizations. You have not convinced me in the least that the arts and humanities cannot be successfully funded this way.

I guess this is where we agree to disagree.

The arts are mostly funded by donations, already. And the amount of your tax money that is being given to support the arts is extremely small. So really, I can't understand why the big objection to the NEA except that they occasionally support an artwork that you (or others) don't like. Yet this, too, is a foolish objection as that's part of what art is supposed to do - it is supposed to offend us, occasionally. And what kind of a selfish idiot thinks it's wrong to offend him?