I feel that public art is generally set up to better serve accessible art than the alternative, which is that the wealthy commission it solely for themselves. Or worse, companies do it to advertise themselves.
The whole point of taxes is that you don't get to pick and choose the parts you like or use. If you don't like where the dollars are going, go vote–although I would personally say that my taxes have many worse places they are going that you might be interested in before we get to any arts projects.
> The whole point of taxes is that you don't get to pick and choose the parts you like or use.
No, the point of taxes is taking some minimum amount of money from others by force, so that the government can spend it how they choose.
> So you're fine with taking others' money by force, and spending some of it on the arts, but you think it's overall not going where you want it to, so you'll minimize your personal contribution?
It’s quite amazing how there are exactly two words in your response that, while true, provide more insight into your position on tax policy than the rest of your comment. I also think they preclude us coming to any sort of understanding without substantial revision of our worldviews. Perhaps you know which ones they are?
> It’s quite amazing how there are exactly two words in your response that, while true, provide more insight into your position on tax policy than the rest of your comment. I also think they preclude us coming to any sort of understanding without substantial revision of our worldviews. Perhaps you know which ones they are?
Feel free to enlighten me, and please tell me in what way they speak to you, and what you believe they say to you.
People who bring up that taxes are collected “by force” are invariably libertarian types that feel any cent that goes to the government is a great injustice, and it’s generally difficult to have any conversation but that when this is the case. If this applies to you, then see my earlier comment; otherwise this is just an fyi for how your comments are being read. Feel free to adjust or clarify as you see appropriate.
> People who bring up that taxes are collected “by force” are invariably libertarian types that feel any cent that goes to the government is a great injustice, and it’s generally difficult to have any conversation but that when this is the case.
I'm not terribly libertarian, but they're not wrong about taxes being collected at gunpoint.
There are lots of things (basically any governmental action) that we should remember end up being done by a police officer physically arresting someone, and if they resist, they will be violently subdued. What's more, there can be serious, often violent side effects. Cigarette taxes come to mind[1][2]. Prohibition in the US. Even property taxes results in folks getting removed from their house (sorry, their government's house) by a sheriff. And don't get me started on eminent domain and civil asset forfeiture.
I'm not saying that taxes are immoral. I am saying that we should be very careful how we wield this lever of government. And implicitly (now explicitly) that you're being rather blasé about it.
As you pointed out, there's generally not taxes for art. There are taxes, and the money the government takes from you could be used for art. There's no guarantee.
Yes, that’s why we vote. I understand that a lot of the money goes towards things I don’t particularly like, which I always vote to reduce. But I generally approach this as ”I’d rather that money be used for something else” not “I should just not pay at all”.
i do. I don't appreciate poetry, never have. But others do, it is culture and art, and i have no right to deny this to others as a common good of the human experience
Fair comment. It was a flippant remark. I'm happy for some of my taxes to be spent on subsidising the arts in it's various forms (including forms I don't like). But certainly not to support every aspiring poet/novelist (not that I think anyone is seriously suggesting that).
If we could guarantee that every $1 spent on poetry was $1 less spent on war, then I would be up for massive funding for poetry. Sadly I don't think the world works like that.
The arts in Renaissance Italy were funded by patronage, not taxes.
... Not that I ever claimed spending money on arts removes all possibility of war, mind you.
Poetry, art, music, drama, etc, improve critical thinking, empathy, self-determination, awareness of history, political engagement, etc; all of which are reasons that one of the first things fascists will do is suppress any arts not related to propaganda.
It's really weird to see someone try and argue that funding the arts has no effect on a populations mindless bloodthirst, in order to defend not paying a microsopic fraction of their income toward poetry.
As I said, the most generous amount the US could be considered to spend on poetry via fed and state taxes is about ten mil. That's 10 cents per person, per year. That's what you're arguing over here. It's profoundly odd.
