Quote from: trumpetguy on July 13, 2007, 08:21:19 AM
I agree with you to a point, Wrecent.  I used to be a libertarian (I ran for state representative in TX on the Libertarian ticket one year) and had a much stricter view of what was proper for government to fund.  As I aged and as I have traveled, I have begun to see that many things I previously disavowed in governments benefit a society.

If we fund SOME art but not other art, we are engaging in censorship.  And the suggestion in this thread was that art which in some way criticizes America should not be funded.

I do think that public art is beneficial to the population at large, and thus acceptable for government subsidy.  In Europe and Canada, symphony orchestras are at least partially funded by the state (here they are totally private).  Museums, same thing.  Art of all kinds is one of the defining artifacts of a culture.  When the state contributes to art, it recognizes that art is important to the citizens and that it is important ENOUGH that all taxpayers should contribute to it at least minimally.  It's at least as important to me as continuing to maintain enough nuclear weapons to decimate the surface area of earth.

With respect, I disagree on several points.. and without meaning any disrespect, you certainly don't sound like even a lapsed libertarian, I find that very hard to believe.

Keeping in mind what I said about taxes being collected at gunpoint, by armed forces willing to escalate to any level of violence required to assure compliance, the question is NOT whether "public art is beneficial to the population at large", but whether it's part of the proper function of government... government (any government) who's only tool is force.

Phrased another way, is it important enough to kill people over?  Taking money from people by force is stating exactly that. You're saying it's worth killing anyone who won't comply.

Sorry, but I have NO problem with a government that does not fund art. I don't think that's a proper function of a government, I don't think it's something that a government is at all likely to do well, or fairly (the NEA being a stellar example), and I certainly don't think it's worth killing people for.

It IS a proper function of those people who think it's important- let them fund it with their own money, not just vote to fund it other people's money collected by force. With less money being coerced away from people, they might even be more willing to contribute to worthy causes... if nobody is willing to spend their OWN money, then, hey, maybe it wasn't really all that worthy.

Letting people contribute to what they want to preserve, rather than being forced to contribute to what some committee THINKS they should want to preserve, IS fair. People will contribute to things that they think are important.. but "important" suddenly becomes a MUCH more flexible a concept if it's other people's money they're voting to "contribute".

So, I have to say I consider the statement "public art is beneficial to the population at large, and thus acceptable for government subsidy" a blatant fallacy. Again, bottom line, force is a government's only tool. There are a GREAT many things that might be "beneficial to the population at large", but are NOT worth the imposition of force to implement. Or does freedom from this sort of top-down imposition count for nothing?

As for "It's at least as important to me as continuing to maintain enough nuclear weapons to decimate the surface area of earth."...  aside from the rhetoric, the government of the United States was created to secure the common defense... not to create a permanent bureaucratic ruling class of neo-Mandarins engineering society "for our own good".  You're explicitly stating that you think that domestic societal engineering is more important than the government's original purpose. Personally, I am not at all sure that any other purpose for government, besides defense, amounts to more than a power grab- even if that power grab started two centuries ago.

It's amazing to me how many of the arguments for "big" (intrusive) government today are EXACTLY the arguments that were put forth before and during the 1770s to justify the monarchy. Most of them boil down to the statement that "the people" don't have the WISDOM to do this, that, or the other for themselves, they MUST be guided and coerced into doing these things "for the common good". That was the conventional wisdom for millennia.. but it's exactly what this country was founded to disprove. Now, somehow, after the country that represents freedom to the whole world has become the most powerful country in the world, after the experiment in self-determination succeeded beyond the dreams of those who started it...  now we're losing both the freedoms, and faith in the very concept of self-determination.

As a nation, we don't need to be ashamed of our lack of public art funding, we need to be ASHAMED of turning our backs on the vision of freedom that once led and inspired the whole world.

would you mind explaining why tax money is collected by gunpoint? my tax money has been collected via computer screen the past couple years... and i don't mean this sarcastically, i actually agree with or understand most of what you said and have no issues with it. i'm just curious to know what you mean by taxes being collect at gunpoint.

i think the art is fine. let it hang. it's art and it's open to interpretation. perhaps the artist was symbolizing america's strengths.

and quite frankly i don't think america will be the most powerful country in the world for much longer. based on my observation of human nature, something big, stupid, and catastrophic is going to happen in the next couple years and i'm already going to be elsewhere. i'm getting the f out of the states while i still can.

Quote from: ledfingers on July 14, 2007, 01:07:54 AM

would you mind explaining why tax money is collected by gunpoint? my tax money has been collected via computer screen the past couple years... and i don't mean this sarcastically, i actually agree with or understand most of what you said and have no issues with it. i'm just curious to know what you mean by taxes being collect at gunpoint.

Please understand that my remarks about the nature of government apply to any government, I'm not singling out one.

Of course taxes are collected at gunpoint. Ok, they'd just as soon have you cooperate without the guns actually being visible... but try not paying the taxes, or paying only part of them.. or tell the nice representative that you've had sort of a bad year, and maybe you'll make it up later...  and then decline to pay the fines, or do anything at all to try to prevent them from incarcerating you, or ruining your life. You'll see the guns all right, and usually pretty quickly.

You have to understand that "force", that is, violence and coercion, are the very definition of government. Again, not singling out one, and not pushing value judgments, it's just the way it is. We refer to WHATEVER institution that most succeeds in monopolizing force in a given area of the world as the "government".  We may say it's not the "rightful" government, or that it's an "unjust" government, but if they can gain a pretty clear monopoly on the use of violence and coercion... that IS what we call government. Bottom line, violence and the threat of violence are the only tools any government has- it's why people are willing to pay taxes, even taxes that support things they don't agree with. It's why congress can debate things like enacting a military draft- which by definition is forcing people to do what they have chosen not to, even at the cost of their lives. It's why they can mandate a 55 mph speed limit. All government power, from any government, essentially comes from the force they're willing to use to back up their mandates.

Simple (if absurd) illustration, just a "thought experiment": Say I pick up a club and beat up my next door neighbor. Normally, you'd expect the "government" to intervene at that point (whether to protect my neighbor or to protect their monopoly on force doesn't affect the action), but if they don't, I can move on to my next neighbor. If I can come to dominate the whole block, by use of violence, bend it to my will, AND get the local, state and federal governments to back off and leave me alone somehow... guess what? I just became the "government" of my block. I can give it a name, a flag, and collect taxes from my cowed neighbors, and live literally "like a king"... until another government prevents me.

That's what "government", good or bad, is and always has been. Essentially, boiled down to it's essence, it's the guy with the biggest club getting what he wants. The rest is decoration. Our experiments with a "republic" attempt to make that government responsive, and perhaps even responsible, to the people by instituting feedback loops.. but they do NOT change the inherent nature of government.

Now, there are a number of people who choose to convince themselves that they cooperate with everything their government mandates voluntarily, that it's essentially everyone acting from some greater altruism, for "the common good". That's certainly a pleasant world-view, and governments are not going to do anything to dissuade it, as it makes their tasks much easier... but, bottom line, they don't really care whether you agree or not, or want to cooperate or not. So long as they monopolize force/violence, which is just saying so long as they are "the government", the outcome will be the same.

Again, as I've said in other contexts, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, I am not insulted or threatened by disagreement... that's freedom. The most I can hope for is some thought on the matter. Hey, I'm not a fossil- a well-thought-out disagreement might even change my mind on the matter.

Wrecent,

Good posts.  I have been really busy and really sick (not a good combination).  I will write a thoughtful answer hopefully this weekend.

TG

Quote from: trumpetguy on July 14, 2007, 06:21:17 AM
Wrecent,

Good posts.  I have been really busy and really sick (not a good combination).  I will write a thoughtful answer hopefully this weekend.

TG

Sorry to hear. No rush, I don't need a soap box. I usually avoid these discussions, so few people have any grasp of history anymore, there's little common frame of reference to support it. You can't tell which direction you're headed in unless you know where you've been before this instant... and most don't.

You OK, TG???
I think you're a moron for your political beliefs but you're a good guy in my book.
Seriously, rest up.

Quote from: spcterry on July 15, 2007, 01:16:47 AM
You OK, TG???
I think you're a moron for your political beliefs but you're a good guy in my book.
Seriously, rest up.

I have been battling some abdominal cramps that are BAD.  Not sure of the cause at the moment, but we think it is related to a broad spectrum antibiotic I took when I had a wisdom tooth pulled in early June.  About ten days after I quit taking the antibiotics, I had the first bout with this crap.  After several days, it was apparent it was not a virus and I went in to see the doctor (who I really trust).  I didn't think to tell her about the previous antibiotic and she diagnosed colon inflammation (she thought diverticulitis at the time) and gave me another ten days of a broad spectrum antibiotic and an anticholerginic (reduces the spasms).  Everything was better while I took that, but four days after stopping I was back to intense pain, and was in one of my busiest weeks ever (last week).

Apparently what happens with these broad spectrum antibiotics is that they kill most of the bacteria in your colon, but leave ONE of them (clostridium dificile) which overpopulates and goes toxic.  It's a potentially fatal condition if untreated.  Now I'm on a different drug (generic flagyl) which kills the clostridium.  I've been taking it since Thursday and feel better, but not back to normal yet.  If this doesn't work I get to have some tests, because I may have some other condition causing the pain/cramping/etc.  The Dr. wants me to do a colonoscopy (50th birthday baseline test and all that).  Whoopee!

So yeah, I'm OK, but not great yet.  Thanks for the best wishes.  There may be hope for you yet, spcterry 

Glad to hear it's getting better.   

Again, sorry to hear, hope it is getting better.

For whatever it's worth, I used to fast more often in my younger days. Fasting for more than 5 days or so tends to kill off the intestinal flora as well (it has some other benefits... we didn't evolve never missing a meal, never having out digestive system shut down once in several decades).

In any case, the conventional wisdom back then was to eat live-culture yogurt to restore the balance for a day or so before solid food.

Not sure if it would help with what you're going through, but it's unlikely to hurt anything.

Quote from: Wrecent_Wryder on July 13, 2007, 02:38:19 PM
Phrased another way, is it important enough to kill people over?  Taking money from people by force is stating exactly that. You're saying it's worth killing anyone who won't comply.

As an older person, I appreciate that you can begin your disagreement with respect.  And that same respect pervades my answer.

That argument doesn't hold water.  We don't have the death penalty for tax evaders.  Taxation is coerced, no question, but it IS limited and we DO have representation.  We are taxed far less than most of the civilized world.

Quote from: Wrecent_Wryder on July 13, 2007, 02:38:19 PMSorry, but I have NO problem with a government that does not fund art. I don't think that's a proper function of a government, I don't think it's something that a government is at all likely to do well, or fairly (the NEA being a stellar example), and I certainly don't think it's worth killing people for.

It IS a proper function of those people who think it's important- let them fund it with their own money, not just vote to fund it other people's money collected by force. With less money being coerced away from people, they might even be more willing to contribute to worthy causes... if nobody is willing to spend their OWN money, then, hey, maybe it wasn't really all that worthy.

Letting people contribute to what they want to preserve, rather than being forced to contribute to what some committee THINKS they should want to preserve, IS fair. People will contribute to things that they think are important.. but "important" suddenly becomes a MUCH more flexible a concept if it's other people's money they're voting to "contribute".

So, I have to say I consider the statement "public art is beneficial to the population at large, and thus acceptable for government subsidy" a blatant fallacy. Again, bottom line, force is a government's only tool. There are a GREAT many things that might be "beneficial to the population at large", but are NOT worth the imposition of force to implement. Or does freedom from this sort of top-down imposition count for nothing?

Honestly, I used to believe the same thing.  Let those who value art or social programs contribute.  The libertarian philosophy is very seductive, and I have read my share of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.  However, the real world is not so black and white.  I have spent time in countries where art is subsidized and frankly, I'd rather live in those places.   If family wasn't such a big deal to me, I would live somewhere else.

There is something to be said for being educated and older.  One has a different perspective.  I live in an area where the average level of education is fairly low.  There are very few people who value art here and fewer still who can afford to support it.  As a result, there is little public art in small towns in this part of the world.  It becomes a self-repeating cycle because most people value what they are familiar with, and when you grow up without it, it's not familiar.  People in Europe and Canada, with great public spaces and public sculpture and subsidized symphony orchestras, develop an appreciation for art that most of us in the USA don't have.

Quote from: Wrecent_Wryder on July 13, 2007, 02:38:19 PM
As for "It's at least as important to me as continuing to maintain enough nuclear weapons to decimate the surface area of earth."...  aside from the rhetoric, the government of the United States was created to secure the common defense... not to create a permanent bureaucratic ruling class of neo-Mandarins engineering society "for our own good".  You're explicitly stating that you think that domestic societal engineering is more important than the government's original purpose. Personally, I am not at all sure that any other purpose for government, besides defense, amounts to more than a power grab- even if that power grab started two centuries ago.

There are a few other phrases in the preamble to the Constitution other than "to provide for the common defense" (which, incidentally, is totally different than pre-emptive war, but that's another debate).  One is to "promote the general welfare," which to me includes all those things which make a society better and improves people's lives.  Elitist?  Perhaps, but I'd rather live in a place that values quality of life even for poor people.

Also, my point was NOT that defense is a bad expenditure, but that we spend too much on it (in my opinion, 4-6 times too much).  We don't need enough atomic weapons to decimate the world in order to defend ourselves.  We don't need to spend more on defense than the next four largest nations combined.  Every two months we stay in Iraq, we are spending enough to give medical insurance to every uninsured child in America for a year.

Quote from: Wrecent_Wryder on July 13, 2007, 02:38:19 PM
It's amazing to me how many of the arguments for "big" (intrusive) government today are EXACTLY the arguments that were put forth before and during the 1770s to justify the monarchy. Most of them boil down to the statement that "the people" don't have the WISDOM to do this, that, or the other for themselves, they MUST be guided and coerced into doing these things "for the common good". That was the conventional wisdom for millennia.. but it's exactly what this country was founded to disprove. Now, somehow, after the country that represents freedom to the whole world has become the most powerful country in the world, after the experiment in self-determination succeeded beyond the dreams of those who started it...  now we're losing both the freedoms, and faith in the very concept of self-determination.

I do lament the loss of freedoms, especiallyhabeas corpus.  However, I don't think that has much to do with spending a small amount of tax money on art.

Quote from: Wrecent_Wryder on July 13, 2007, 02:38:19 PMAs a nation, we don't need to be ashamed of our lack of public art funding, we need to be ASHAMED of turning our backs on the vision of freedom that once led and inspired the whole world.

I agree with half of what you say!   We should be ashamed of losing freedoms.

My illness is getting better, but it will be a week or two until I know if this medication worked (or if there is some other condition causing the symptoms).  I have been eating yogurt like crazy ad taking lactobacillus supplements.   Hopefully it will work!  I actually got out for a ride today -- 45 minutes of fun.  Kind of hard to ride when you don't know when a bathroom will be required right f@#king NOW.

Quote from: trumpetguy on July 17, 2007, 09:25:40 PM

Quote from: Wrecent_Wryder on July 13, 2007, 02:38:19 PM
Phrased another way, is it important enough to kill people over?  Taking money from people by force is stating exactly that. You're saying it's worth killing anyone who won't comply.

We are taxed far less than most of the civilized world.

isn't this because the rest of the world's taxes go to their public healthcare systems???   or as many like to call it "free" healthcare

Quote from: porsche4786 on July 18, 2007, 07:12:32 AM
isn't this because the rest of the world's taxes go to their public healthcare systems???   or as many like to call it "free" healthcare

True enough, but I don't think anyone calls health care "free."  Universal, maybe, but not free.

As an educator, I'd ONCE like to see a world where schools have enough money to buy $600 hammers like the pentagon does.

Here's an interesting flash cartoon comparing US federal budget expenditures. 
http://www.truemajority.com/oreos/

And another short video about the absurd size of the US nuclear arsenal:
http://www.truemajority.com/bensbbs/

And finally, a pie chart of the US federal budget:
http://www.truemajority.com/csba/priorities.php