Project Offset

I just signed the petition. Arrghh, stupid Republicans...

And why should the government be funding art to begin with?

The disease control one might bother me, but since I don't know how much they were getting, I don't know whether a cut was warranted.

I chose some of the more recognizable cuts. Everyone has different projects they hold dear and the point was not to show people some projects they agreed with cutting, but to present people with important projects whose termination they may care about.

Personally I do not believe publicly available art would exist without government support. The concept of private support of such activities is, in my opinion, a fantasy (this concept is referenced in many of these proposed cuts).

However, a dutiful response is not "I don't disagree with all of those, and some I might disagree with I would need to know more about". That sounds like trying to deflect and bury an issue. A dutiful response would involve actual agreement with the list as a whole and investigation into those points of which you are unsure. Just because they could be getting enough that you do not care about the cuts does not mean you should assume it is the case.

From their presentation of the cut only (I'll point out that at least one of their explanations of activities - for the National Science Foundation - was inaccurate):
The CDC got a 25% increase in funding last year in order to better deal with possible attacks. It is unclear whether their reduction simply means (relative to 2 years ago) less of an increase, no increase at all, or an overall reduction in funding.

If publicly available art wouldn't exist, so what? If people aren't willing to pay for it, it's obviously not very important to them.

Things like roads and police are necessary to a free orderly society, the roads improve our economy and benefit almost everyone, the police actually increase freedom by preventing others from infringing on your rights. But, When you foricbly take someone's money away from them and give it to an artist to make works of art that the person who's money you took may not even care about, you are forcibly imposing your values on that person. If people don't value art, who are you to tell them they should?

And don't even get me started on Public Broadcasting. Why are you liberals always complaining that any across the board tax cut is "for the wealthy" (because mathematically if you decrease everyone's taxes five percent, people who were paying more get more of a cut), when your precious public broadcasting is forcibly taking money from rich and poor alike so that rich white suburbanites can watch britcoms without commercials?

But, When you foricbly take someone's money away from them and give it to an artist to make works of art that the person who's money you took may not even care about, you are forcibly imposing your values on that person.

By that measure I don't support the military waging wars in foreign countries. I also don't support the tax exempt status of religion or marriage benefits for any state that doesn't also recognize gay marriage. I'm also sick of paying meter maids to give me parking tickets. These programs don't directly benefit me and they conflict with my beliefs, therefore the government should cut funding to them because otherwise it's stealing from me.

If government was solely about providing services that everyone wanted to pay for taxes wouldn't need to exist at all.

Why are you liberals always complaining that any across the board tax cut is "for the wealthy"...when your precious public broadcasting is forcibly taking money from rich and poor alike so that rich white suburbanites can watch britcoms without commercials...

"You liberals"? Have I struck a sore spot?

As for the CPB you conveniently gloss over educational programs like Sesame Street and Nova in order to make a straw man attack against it. The poor hardly fund the CPB, that's how those X% taxes work. Just like 5% cuts give less to the poor, 5% increases cost them less. Furthermore the CPB is 85% supported by donations and those are most certainly not coming from the poor (probably from the suburbanites who like the britcoms). So while that may seem like stealing in your opinion, it's at the very least not contradictory to liberal ideology.

First off, other than the meter maid example, you shouldn't be paying for those things. The government should cut funding to them; it is stealing from you. Repeating my central argument in what I can only assume is a sarcastic tone is not refuting it.

The government is about providing services that everyone wants to pay for (or at least that benefit everyone), taxes are the mechanism by which we pay for them. If payment was completely voluntary no one would pay, because everyone would realise that their small donation would not make much of a difference, and would keep it for themselves. Just about everyone wants roads, cops, schools. Almost any rational person would be willing to pay for them, but its foolish to pay if no one else does.

(Are you familiar with the prisoner's dilemma? Government is the mechanism by which we enforce that everyone, in prisoner's dilemma terms, doesn't snitch on their buddy. This result is better in every way for every person than the alternative were everyone looks out for themselves and snitches.)

Valuing art on the other hand, is just a subjective value you hold. What right do you have to impose that on anyone else? Some people value Christian morality. Should the government have the right to take your money to fund churches (and I mean really fund them, not give them the same tax immunity that all non-profits have)? If not, how is it any different? The only difference, near as I can see, is you happen to value art and not religion.

As for the CPB, I was being glib, yes. But for sesame street, which always gets trotted out as this untouchable piece of nostalgia from our childhood, there are plenty of educational shows on other TV channels (Nickolodean comes to mind - their daytime programming is quite educational), and if the CPB went off the air, the Children's television workshop would probably just sell it to some other channel.

And yes, I do think its contradictory to liberal philosophy. Maybe not for the "weak" defintion of liberal (whatever the democrats support these days), just like the "weak" defintion of conservatism seems to decry states rights and support bloated government. In the same mythical land that conservatism is about states rights and small government, liberalism is about not legislating morality, not being paternalistic, not imposing your values on others through coercion, and letting the individual decide as much as possible for himself. Me saying "you liberals" is increasingly ironic these days, like when liberals refer to Bush as a "compassionate conservative" as he's dropping bombs.

This is a difference in governmental philosophy then, since in my opinion government involves paying into things you don't necessarily believe or benefit from in exchange for having other services that you do value likewise communally supported. I will agree that Libertarianism is perfectly and logically "fair", however perfectly "fair" is not necessarily good.

In a Libertarian society no one ever has to give any more than they then directly receive, but we are never more than the sum of our parts. We wouldn't advance science other than when it is profitable (can't say our understanding of even the solar system is of terribly much immediate value), we wouldn't have art other than private commissions, and it would be ok for people to die if by their own decisions things went poorly for them. It works and no one can complain that it's unfair, but it means we never accomplish anything bigger.

The government is about providing services that everyone wants to pay for (or at least that benefit everyone), taxes are the mechanism by which we pay for them. If payment was completely voluntary no one would pay, because everyone would realise that their small donation would not make much of a difference, and would keep it for themselves. Just about everyone wants roads, cops, schools. Almost any rational person would be willing to pay for them, but its foolish to pay if no one else does.

This is the same property by which the government funds a myriad of programs that are not universally desired, but which provide something for everyone. And why do you think a rational person would support those things you assume are essential? A personally strong (and opportunistic) person is hindered by the police and people in rural areas gain very little from a well-kept road system beyond what minimal maintenance is required to transport goods. Likewise if someone has already finished school (in one way or another - possibly by paying for a private school) and does not particularly care about the education of future generations, why would they support a public school system?

At some point the system needs to move beyond what everyone desires and can benefit from to a lesser standard by which society as a whole benefits.

The only difference, near as I can see, is you happen to value art and not religion.

I have to answer this even though I don't have anything wity to reply with, but art has some established and general value to all (even if minimal or not to taste). It's not a philosophy that only applies to a select subsection and is generically provided without question or ethical requirement. It's a thing as opposed to an idea (just like a park is universally available to all for some small value).

I personally don't value art very highly. If a school needs to cut costs and the music department goes, I do not think the resulting children will be stunted in life. However I do still see it as having a general universal value. I may not visit the Museum of Fine Arts more than once a decade, but in my opinion its existence and that capability is a value to all.

...liberalism is about not legislating morality, not being paternalistic, not imposing your values on others through coercion, and letting the individual decide as much as possible for himself.

It's a matter of literal definition verse observational definition. I do not believe an observational definition of the political philosophy "liberalism", no matter how strong or weak, can be divided from some concept of society providing a measure of support to its individuals. Otherwise "strong" conservatism and "strong" liberalism (both of which look suspiciously like what is commonly referred to as "libertarianism" when you define them) would not have any conflict. Even European liberals, who are much more closely aligned with the "strong" liberal philosophy are simultaneously also closely aligned with socialism (and support of the much maligned arts!). At some point one must cede the observational to be the truth, no matter what root the word claims.

On the libertarian society, I am not purely libertarian. I do think the government can fund science, but only science to benefit all not "knowledge for knowledge's sake" science. But you are right in your essential claim. I'm not looking to make society "good", I'm looking to make it free. "Good" is different for all people though, so it's hard to make a society good without opressing someone. If I were to impose my Catholic morality/idea of "good" on the government, we would have a socialist wonderland were the almost sole goal of society would be to help the least among us. But I withold from imposing this value on others, the same way and by the same principal that I refuse to vote to outlaw eating meat on fridays in lent. My "liberal" principles prevent me from telling others they must conform to my view of what is good.

As for your second point, what is "society as a whole" but a collection of individuals? Whats the difference between what benefits individuals and what benefits society? We agree to fund these things not because I want that school over there, but because everyone wants education in general. I'm not sure what your point is.

I guess I just don't agree with you that art has value to all. Some people won't value it, or at least won't value the particular art the government chooses to subsidize. As art being a thing and not an idea...well I'm not sure I agree with that (it's a thing that expresses an idea, most likely - would you fund religious art?). Even if I were to agree, it doesn't excuse it (should we fund "things" that aren't universally valued?). You assert that its valued by all which I just don't think is the case.

As for the definition of liberalism I think I could right a whole post just about that, but I think we're both right. When I read classic "liberal" philosophers in my political phil. classes they all express ideas that seem "libertarian" (some modern day libertarians call themselves "classical liberals"). That said, words do change. Conservatism is an even more confused term, because it's subjectively defined as holding on to the values you already have (which of course, change), so the defintion of conservatism will change as time goes on.

I do think the government can fund science, but only science to benefit all not "knowledge for knowledge's sake" science.

This is very hard to determine a priori.

As examples, both the transistor and the Internet were created mostly because some scientists thought it would be neat and they were being funded to work on more or less whatever they liked.

The government should cut funding to them; it is stealing from you.

By living in such a country, you implicitly agree that in exchange for the benefit of having a say in the government, you are willing to abide by the laws, even when you don't personally like them. Taxes in a democracy/republic are never stealing.

(unless perhaps some people are not properly represented by not having suffrage, but then it's not the taxes that are the real problem)

Valuing art on the other hand, is just a subjective value you hold.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't value *any* kind of art.

The reason the National Endowment for the Arts exists is because many people *do* believe it benefits society as a whole.

Again, if you don't believe in mob rule fine, but your arguments sure as hell don't distinguish you from someone who does.

In part because living in America isn't much of a choice I don't think I really implicitly agreed to anything by living here. Do opressed minorities agree implicitly to be opressed just by living in the country that they do? I never agreed to fund the CPB or "art", I was told I had to because the people in power said so. That those people in power were chosen by the mob. They got to impose their will on me because there are more of them. Sounds like mob rule to me.

On the art issue it's just your assertion against mine, so I guess thats where that argument has to end. I tend to see the assertion that *everyone* values public art as just sort of an elitist assumption.

Even so, why are we paying for the CPB and such when there is so much poverty. Shouldn't we have some priorities at least?

And just because everyone values something doesn't make it the governments responsibility. Everyone values entertainment, but the government isn't out there building free movie theaters.

If publicly available art wouldn't exist, so what? If people aren't willing to pay for it, it's obviously not very important to them.

I and many others are willing to pay, via taxes, for publicly available art, as long as you pay too. That's how taxes in a democracy work.

If people don't value art, who are you to tell them they should?

I fully support your right to not value art.

Get any financial aid? If you believe that taxes should only be used for things that clearly benefit everyone, I'll gladly take it off your hands for you.

If you think the majority, however slight, should be able to force the minority to pay for whatever they personally value, though it's neither universally valued nor absolutely necessary, fine. Just don't complain when the government wants to fund religion, or something similar.

Personally I don't want a completely pure "democracy", I want some groundrules to protect minorities. Perfectly pure democracy just replaces the might-makes-right "give me that because I'm stronger than you" of the past with "give me that because there's two of us".

(and, btw, I do value art. I just don't expect you to subsidize my value of art)

No, I don't want a pure democracy that degenerates into mob rule, either, but I reject the need for building a system based on complete consensus where we can't tax anyone for anything they don't want to pay for. I prefer something in between, and accept that sometimes this means I, too, will pay for things I don't want to pay for.

This isn't the first time I wished I knew you better while we were both still in Worcester.