Xanthious said:
Witwoud said:
How and why is it wasteful spending? Do you agree that it's a "valid argument" to use video games as an example of how the NEA has suffered a "perversion" of its goals that makes it wasteful? Because that's the argument Loudmouth McRadio-Host was using.
How is it wasteful? It's wasteful because right now America is collecting more tax money than they have at any other point in time. However, even though we are collecting massive amounts of money we are still spiraling further and further into debt as a country. The NEA is small when you consider the much larger waste from things like military spending and foreign aid but it is still part of the problem none-the-less.
It shouldn't be the government's place to force people into supporting the arts. I for one, don't want to support the arts, however, I am forced to against my will when my taxes go to organizations like the NEA. The people who wish to support the arts should do so with private donations or other such funding while the government stays out of it.
First, if your argument is "funding arts is wasteful. Always." then there's no need for that first paragraph, is there?
Second, so you disagree with the NEA's goals, as opposed to some of the other arguments. Ok. Now we can get somewhere.
Alright, so are you libertarian? This idea that people should only pay the taxes that they personally approve of seems to indicate this. If so, there's going to be a conflict of values here that I doubt can actually be resolved. You see, I don't believe that people will always understand what is in their own rational self-interest, let alone act on it, which is why I doubt the usefulness of people only paying taxes for what they want, or at least think they want.
There's also a conflict of values in that I find maintaining the culture of a community, even (or perhaps especially) an imaginary one such as a nation-state, to be quite important (mostly in terms of creating and maintaining a rich, diverse heritage that encourages critical appreciation of, and response to, the world by the citizenry, which is particularly important to democracies). In that case, it's especially helpful for there to be public access to the arts (both in experiencing and creating it), just as there should be public access to education (not to mention public education in the arts). Otherwise, it is left simply to the very rich or corporations, and I don't believe that the only art should be commercially funded, for-profit art (as it lowers the innovation and diversity of the art, and essentially demands that the art be created for different goals (to make money*) than a publicly funded artwork (to serve the public good), or that experiencing it should be restricted to a very few. You may disagree; it seems that you do. You can see where this may set up some irreconcilable value differences.
I think it's also worth noting that people do choose to fund the arts aside from taxes, and that the NEA exists to facilitate that, rather than replace it, as can be seen in the fact that NEA grants match the money raised by non-profits (it seems to exist in many ways more as a stamp of approval for various projects than sole funder, which makes it especially important to the games-are-art crowd).
In short, I believe that arts and culture are a public good, and therefore require public funding. Again, there are so many belief systems that you may adhere to that would create a sufficient gap between our values that such a debate between the two of us may not have much point (as we'll be arguing the effects of our beliefs, rather than the beliefs themselves).
And more on the topic, just because you agree with the opinion of the radio host, that doesn't mean the arguments he made to justify this opinion were actually valid, as seen by the way he used video games in the segment.
*Of course such a work can also be made for the public good, but it also MUST have the other goal as well.
