Just a couple of points
Originally posted by JB88
it is nieve to think that a society can endure without at least some preservation of the arts. when the arts go...the dark ages come. what came after the renaissance? dark ages. what comes when fear overtakes enlightenment? dark ages. what are we entering now culturally? hmmm.
It is naive to think that the Dark Ages resulted from the lack of art, or to think that they later ended because of it. Art has and will continue to shape cultures and societies, (in both positive and negative ways) but a person would be hard pressed to show a culture or society would collapse without it. The list of things the led to the fall of the Roman empire is indeed long, but I don't remember seeing "Lack of Art" on the list. Would culture be slower to change without the influence of art? Absolutely! (Again whether that shift is positive or negative) Did art help to speed up the abolition of slavery? Absolutely, but it was not the only factor, and slavery would have ended, with or without. (BTW, I don't believe we funded that art.)
Originally posted by JB88
my point is, that it isnt really about "my money" or "your money" in this case...that's just how it's packaged. the amount of money spent is so negligible that it takes a real dufus to try to compare the NEA to anything.
Money is mentioned, because we are talking about "funding" with tax payers money. So at least in some measure it is about money, but more importantly it's about the role of the government and the rights of the people.
We should always remember this:
The government has no money (for all intensive purposes) of it's own. The only money it has is "Our Money"; and we certainly have a right to voice our opinion about whether it should be spend or not, and if it is spent, then how. Again, the issue of "amount" is irrelevant, if the discussion is about, whether the government "Should" or "Has a right to" spend the money.
BTW, I should point out, I'm not necessarily against the government funding certain historical preservation projects, or other such things. However, I believe it is not unreasonable to expect that it is done with some oversight.
Originally posted by JB88
what it is really about is fear.
and smoke screens.
I have no doubt this is sometimes the case, it is not the case with me however, nor is it the case with everyone that opposes funding for the arts. Just like not everyone that wants the arts funded is a socialist.
For me it's about the fundamental philosophy surrounding the role of our government, and the rights of its citizens. It's about debating where the line starts and ends, on those things that are "necessary" for the well being of our society; and finding a place where the good of the whole is maintained, without stripping away the rights of the individual.
As I mentioned above, with the arts money is mentioned, because the issue revolves around "funding." But the real issue is not money so much, as the issue of the role of government and the rights of the people. If we talked about drug testing, that topic might not include allot of talk about money, and more about what is best for our society. However, the same views really drive both topics. The rights of the individual versus the rights of the society as a whole.
I would normally (almost always) rather error on the side of the individual, because I believe (and history certainly demonstrates) when the rights of the individual are stripped away, not only do some individuals suffer, but that society as a whole suffers. So give me liberty, even if I use my liberty to my own harm, as long as I don't strip away your right to liberty in doing so.
Best regards,
--Tachus
