What Libertarians Do

[Warren Dew]

Libertarians don't support publicly-funded schooling in the first place, do they?

Hard line libertarians don't. More pragmatic libertarians like myself who prefer to work within the existing legal system would prefer to move to a voucher system. I think most parents would still look for a school that included some arts to use their vouchers with.

[Audley Strange]

The Arts are supported big time by government subsidies, at least here in Europe. Would Shakespeare ever be shown if it was all down to simple supply and demand? Would it matter?

Good question and to be honest I think one of Elitism. It seems to me they are getting subsidies under the guise of "bringing the arts to the masses" of whom about 7 are interested in such, but really they want it subsidised because they would often not be profitable to produce on behalf of a tiny percentage of the population, but that tiny percent are the ones who really want to keep it an exclusive club, despite their claims.

Trust me, if a bunch of Chavs wanted to go and see an ethnic contemporary dance production about the dangers of Female genital mutilation, they probably wouldn't even get past the doorway of the ICA.

Should they be subsidised? I don't think so. Would it mean less art in our schools and theatres, perhaps, but honestly, I don't think anyone outside of a percentage of Guardian and Telegraph readers care whether it is or not.

There is an element of elitism I agree with you, but I deliberately avoided that word in my comment because it is elitism with a difference. I am not a cultural relativist. Macbeth is better than East Enders. Mozart is better than Boyzone as far as I am concerned.

So maybe it is about education rather than entertainment for the elite. It is that too no doubt, but I will never forget taking my daughter to see Midsummer Night's Dream in Stratford on Avon when we lived near there, when she was about 8. Her face lit up and she enjoyed Shakespeare from that day on. And we aren't part of any elite unless you call a middle class guy with a decent education that.

I'm glad you made this point re- elitism and Shakespeare. I think enough people care about his work that it would still get produced at universities and such, even if it weren't government-subsidized.

What worries me re- government support of the arts isn't so much the big playhouses and opera houses and philharmonics-- though I do care about them. But I worry more about arts funding being chopped from public school budgets because it is perceived as frivolous.

I know you know this, Rum, I'm saying this generally: arts programs are an asset to other learning, with ties to history, literature, music comprehension, hands-on work, collaborative work and learning, etc., etc. Students who may have difficulty keying in to other academic subjects may find a way in through the arts-- a desire to excel that feeds from artistic endeavors back into other work. And arts education is practical, too. Most of the people I know here in the city are making hteir living in the arts, so I don't understand why it's such a popular trope that students should forget about the arts and focus on what will get them a job.

Okay, this is a derail. A bit.

Libertarians don't support publicly-funded schooling in the first place, do they?

Well if I may say so your reasoning for supporting subsidies for the arts in the school system is very tentative. "It might benefit some" is not as far as I'm concerned a useful use of public resources in boom times, let alone in a time when the Government is having to cut fundamental services.

I am not a Luddite. I've had work shown in galleries and magazines. I come from a family who have a great love of the arts and have members of my family who work in theatre. I'm attempting to make a living from it myself. It would be very easy for me to sit back and pretend "the poor stuggling artist" needs help. They don't, they need talent, training and a fucking lot of luck. I know novelists who work part time and people who work in T.V. production who have second jobs. None of them seem to bother about that. Why is it that the really famous artists like Dickens or Mozart and the really fringe artists, like the Nigerian Miscarriage woman think they should get public funding, but venues for stand up comedy, or local bands, or the like get nothing.

Why? Because it is not about funding arts it's about sustaining minority interests, which I have little objection with, but not at the expense of the majority interests. A shit football team I hate has just went into administration. Still while I hate them, I accept that between 20 thousand and 50 thousand people really really do like going to see them. That's now been jeapordised because of mismanagement, whill the 50,000 fans see a penny of government money going towards their passtimes?

No. Why? Fuck them, they're plebs, their taste is in their arse.

I take exception to those who think their fringe tastes are worth the state preserving at the expense other services which might benefit more people. I'll tell you why there is a trope for this, because almost every self professed "artist" or person that "works in the arts" fails to make a reasonable living month in, month out. Most people would rather have security of a regular pay packet.

Also often what is considered now to be high brow art, was at the time of it's creation, the same kind of populist drivel that others claim about modern culture.

Be an elitist wanker on your own coin. (Not targetted to you or Rum btw, just a general comment.)

[hadespussercats]

The Arts are supported big time by government subsidies, at least here in Europe. Would Shakespeare ever be shown if it was all down to simple supply and demand? Would it matter?

Good question and to be honest I think one of Elitism. It seems to me they are getting subsidies under the guise of "bringing the arts to the masses" of whom about 7 are interested in such, but really they want it subsidised because they would often not be profitable to produce on behalf of a tiny percentage of the population, but that tiny percent are the ones who really want to keep it an exclusive club, despite their claims.

Trust me, if a bunch of Chavs wanted to go and see an ethnic contemporary dance production about the dangers of Female genital mutilation, they probably wouldn't even get past the doorway of the ICA.

Should they be subsidised? I don't think so. Would it mean less art in our schools and theatres, perhaps, but honestly, I don't think anyone outside of a percentage of Guardian and Telegraph readers care whether it is or not.

There is an element of elitism I agree with you, but I deliberately avoided that word in my comment because it is elitism with a difference. I am not a cultural relativist. Macbeth is better than East Enders. Mozart is better than Boyzone as far as I am concerned.

So maybe it is about education rather than entertainment for the elite. It is that too no doubt, but I will never forget taking my daughter to see Midsummer Night's Dream in Stratford on Avon when we lived near there, when she was about 8. Her face lit up and she enjoyed Shakespeare from that day on. And we aren't part of any elite unless you call a middle class guy with a decent education that.

I'm glad you made this point re- elitism and Shakespeare. I think enough people care about his work that it would still get produced at universities and such, even if it weren't government-subsidized.

What worries me re- government support of the arts isn't so much the big playhouses and opera houses and philharmonics-- though I do care about them. But I worry more about arts funding being chopped from public school budgets because it is perceived as frivolous.

I know you know this, Rum, I'm saying this generally: arts programs are an asset to other learning, with ties to history, literature, music comprehension, hands-on work, collaborative work and learning, etc., etc. Students who may have difficulty keying in to other academic subjects may find a way in through the arts-- a desire to excel that feeds from artistic endeavors back into other work. And arts education is practical, too. Most of the people I know here in the city are making hteir living in the arts, so I don't understand why it's such a popular trope that students should forget about the arts and focus on what will get them a job.

Okay, this is a derail. A bit.

Libertarians don't support publicly-funded schooling in the first place, do they?

Well if I may say so your reasoning for supporting subsidies for the arts in the school system is very tentative. "It might benefit some" is not as far as I'm concerned a useful use of public resources in boom times, let alone in a time when the Government is having to cut fundamental services.

I am not a Luddite. I've had work shown in galleries and magazines. I come from a family who have a great love of the arts and have members of my family who work in theatre. I'm attempting to make a living from it myself. It would be very easy for me to sit back and pretend "the poor stuggling artist" needs help. They don't, they need talent, training and a fucking lot of luck. I know novelists who work part time and people who work in T.V. production who have second jobs. None of them seem to bother about that. Why is it that the really famous artists like Dickens or Mozart and the really fringe artists, like the Nigerian Miscarriage woman think they should get public funding, but venues for stand up comedy, or local bands, or the like get nothing.

Why? Because it is not about funding arts it's about sustaining minority interests, which I have little objection with, but not at the expense of the majority interests. A shit football team I hate has just went into administration. Still while I hate them, I accept that between 20 thousand and 50 thousand people really really do like going to see them. That's now been jeapordised because of mismanagement, whill the 50,000 fans see a penny of government money going towards their passtimes?

No. Why? Fuck them, they're plebs, their taste is in their arse.

I take exception to those who think their fringe tastes are worth the state preserving at the expense other services which might benefit more people. I'll tell you why there is a trope for this, because almost every self professed "artist" or person that "works in the arts" fails to make a reasonable living month in, month out. Most people would rather have security of a regular pay packet.

Also often what is considered now to be high brow art, was at the time of it's creation, the same kind of populist drivel that others claim about modern culture.

Be an elitist wanker on your own coin. (Not targetted to you or Rum btw, just a general comment.)

No, Audley, I see your point. I don't know if you saw the comment I made previous:

The Arts are supported big time by government subsidies, at least here in Europe. Would Shakespeare ever be shown if it was all down to simple supply and demand? Would it matter?

If there isn't a demand for the Bard, why should he be shown? I'm serious-- this isn't rhetorical.

Regardless, I think there's plenty of demand to see Shakespeare in England. People travel in from around the world to do it.

I'm torn about arts funding, generally. On one hand, I see arts funding as a sign that a government is enlightened enough to want to foster work and to make sure that audiences that might not have access to culture get a chance to see it and be a part of it. On the other hand, if that means (and it too often does) that the government gets to dictate content, their help really might be more trouble than it's worth. Are arts so weak on their own that they can't survive without government support? Clearly not-- culture/entertainment is one of the US's most valuable exports.

Maybe the movies, music, Broadway musicals, and so forth that make the most money and win the most popular success seem too low-brow to certain proponents of governmental subsidies. I don't know.

I can tell you the Met Opera gets an enormous grant from the NEA each year, and still orchestra seats would cost us a month's rent. There are some rush ticket bargains, and the occasional inner-city school is invited to watch final dress rehearsal, but I really wonder who's benefiting most from that government subsidy. Yes, there are backstage workers who actually get paid a decent wage. But it's still mostly entertainment for the rich.

I don't know. I'm spitballing here.

I guess the short answer here is that I don't know what the best answer is. Some of the struggles artists have gotten into with the NEA here (see Mapplethorpe et al) make me wonder if any amount of money is worth the hassle and the impetus to self-censor to ensure funding, not to mention the risk of having your work become a tool for politicians to manipulate the public (see Jesse Helms.)

But while I absolutely support your point about why popular work doesn't win the governmental support that so-called "high" art does, (and how that arguably delegitimizes the entire endeavor) what worries me is that the reason some art remains elite and stuck lonely at the top of a pedestal is not for any failing beyond lack of access. Not that long ago, every singer at the Met was white. Now there are singers, headliners even, of all ethnicities. That's largely because of a shift in demographics in the last few decades, that has allowed people with different backgrounds the exposure to an art that inspired a love for it-- a love that ultimately led to a career.

I'd like to see more of that. I wish that more people saw that sort of development as a goal worthy of financial support.

But-- if a school can't afford textbooks, it's foolish to worry too much about the drama program.

All I was getting at in the comment you quoted is that arts education is often sidelined as enrichment-- and sidelined even when other enrichments like sports programs are protected as essential. (Well, not all I was getting at-- but most of it.)

Honestly, I'd like to see more value being placed on vocational training in general (and that's what most arts education is, unless you're talking history or criticism.) I wish vocational schooling weren't seen as what's left for kids who can't cut it in the college track.

[And as a general note-- my question about the libertarian take on public schooling wasn't snark-- I'd been talking about public schools as a place where government funding happens, and realized suddenly that libertarians might not think that was a hot idea. Genuine curiosity there.]

[Audley Strange]

Well you make a good point about State influence of art. I've heard people many time ponder what the "Great Artists" would have done if they were not working for monarchs or the clergy. I'm not against arts in school, in fact I think the fact that my history teacher and english teacher touched on the poets of the great war at the same time, gave me a better appreciation of them, but it's not that I think anyone reasonably objects to.

In fact I think the main objection is more blatantly pointed out by yourself, subsidising the fringe and antiquated entertainments of the Rich because those who like them think they are more worthy of subsidy. I find the arrogance of it breath-taking, considering that so many of those who support it are pseudo-intellectual poseurs who would get upset if someone dismissed Ibsen or Butoh as easily as they dismiss the art of soap opera or seemingly content free reality T.V. shows.

Snobbery is one thing, Government funded snobbery is quite another, especially as it does in effect promote ignorance.

[eXcommunicate]

Well you make a good point about State influence of art. I've heard people many time ponder what the "Great Artists" would have done if they were not working for monarchs or the clergy. I'm not against arts in school, in fact I think the fact that my history teacher and english teacher touched on the poets of the great war at the same time, gave me a better appreciation of them, but it's not that I think anyone reasonably objects to.

In fact I think the main objection is more blatantly pointed out by yourself, subsidising the fringe and antiquated entertainments of the Rich because those who like them think they are more worthy of subsidy. I find the arrogance of it breath-taking, considering that so many of those who support it are pseudo-intellectual poseurs who would get upset if someone dismissed Ibsen or Butoh as easily as they dismiss the art of soap opera or seemingly content free reality T.V. shows.

Snobbery is one thing, Government funded snobbery is quite another, especially as it does in effect promote ignorance.

I can see your point regarding government funding of endowments for the arts and things like that. But I have a harder time agreeing that arts and music should be cut from public schools as if they are some kind of fringe Bourgeoisie movement that should not be supported by government.

[Coito ergo sum]

My favored supermarket not only has baggers for the groceries, but they provide options of paper bags, or plastic bags, or reusable "environmentally friendly" bags. They'll bag the stuff up, and they ask each customer if that customer would like them to wheel the cart out to the car for them. I think that's meant for the elderly and the infirm, but they ask even able bodied folks so that nobody bitches. They'll help people load their vehicles with the groceries too, and wheel the empty cart back to the store.

My nearest supermarket likes to wheel the cart out to the car for us and wheel the empty cart back to the store because in their neighborhood, unattended shopping carts get stolen.

I just noticed the other day that the Wal-Mart has carts that automatically lock the wheels if they are moved beyond the parking lot.

[Coito ergo sum]

My favored supermarket not only has baggers for the groceries, but they provide options of paper bags, or plastic bags, or reusable "environmentally friendly" bags. They'll bag the stuff up, and they ask each customer if that customer would like them to wheel the cart out to the car for them. I think that's meant for the elderly and the infirm, but they ask even able bodied folks so that nobody bitches. They'll help people load their vehicles with the groceries too, and wheel the empty cart back to the store.

My nearest supermarket likes to wheel the cart out to the car for us and wheel the empty cart back to the store because in their neighborhood, unattended shopping carts get stolen.

Don't they get locked together and released with deposit (£1 here)

No. People generally don't steal them here. They are just left open. In most malls and shopping centers here, even merchandise is left out front unattended and easily stolen. Bookstores often have tables of books outside on the sidewalk with no attendant.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Arts are supported big time by government subsidies, at least here in Europe. Would Shakespeare ever be shown if it was all down to simple supply and demand? Would it matter?

If there isn't a demand for the Bard, why should he be shown? I'm serious-- this isn't rhetorical.

Regardless, I think there's plenty of demand to see Shakespeare in England. People travel in from around the world to do it.

When I lived in Michigan, there was a lot of demand for Shakespeare. The Michigan Shakespeare Festival is great. I especially liked it when it was held outside. In the town I lived in they had Shakespeare in the Park every year, where maybe 50-100 spectators pay $15 each to watch a small production of a Shakespeare play outside in the park No government subsidies needed - they got donations.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

I think some folks are getting a bit confused and thinking that a library has to be about paper books , or even a building - it doesn't (and eventually most probably won't be). But the public funding of Libraries is important, not only to ensure access but also to simply ensure that no single company owns (or deletes?!) the entire knowledge database of a civilisation, or simply jumbles it all up into a meaningless pool of knowledge.

In regard to Shakespeare, I think it is something that gets better with (your) age. FWIW, I "did" Macbeth at School (for O level) - it was many years later that I twigged why Lady Macbeth went all mental Apparently murdering people was considered "bad" - even in the olden days.....Teacher probably assumed that the Students all understood that, for me it just seemed the silly part of the plot.

Classical music is just shit.

[Svartalf]

My favored supermarket not only has baggers for the groceries, but they provide options of paper bags, or plastic bags, or reusable "environmentally friendly" bags. They'll bag the stuff up, and they ask each customer if that customer would like them to wheel the cart out to the car for them. I think that's meant for the elderly and the infirm, but they ask even able bodied folks so that nobody bitches. They'll help people load their vehicles with the groceries too, and wheel the empty cart back to the store.

My nearest supermarket likes to wheel the cart out to the car for us and wheel the empty cart back to the store because in their neighborhood, unattended shopping carts get stolen.

Don't they get locked together and released with deposit (£1 here)

No. People generally don't steal them here. They are just left open. In most malls and shopping centers here, even merchandise is left out front unattended and easily stolen. Bookstores often have tables of books outside on the sidewalk with no attendant.

You live in some kind of gated community?

[hadespussercats]

The Arts are supported big time by government subsidies, at least here in Europe. Would Shakespeare ever be shown if it was all down to simple supply and demand? Would it matter?

If there isn't a demand for the Bard, why should he be shown? I'm serious-- this isn't rhetorical.

Regardless, I think there's plenty of demand to see Shakespeare in England. People travel in from around the world to do it.

When I lived in Michigan, there was a lot of demand for Shakespeare. The Michigan Shakespeare Festival is great. I especially liked it when it was held outside. In the town I lived in they had Shakespeare in the Park every year, where maybe 50-100 spectators pay $15 each to watch a small production of a Shakespeare play outside in the park No government subsidies needed - they got donations.

Yeah. I think Shakespeare's safe. His work has never really been high-brow-- despite reports to the contrary! It's popular entertainment.

[hadespussercats]

I'm not against arts in school, in fact I think the fact that my history teacher and english teacher touched on the poets of the great war at the same time, gave me a better appreciation of them, but it's not that I think anyone reasonably objects to.

You'd be surprised what seemingly reasonable people can object to.

To be fair, poetry is right in the wheelhouse of English curriculum. Showing images of Guernica, or performing scenes from The Living Newspaper, or what have you, would also build historical understanding of that time, and give an opportunity for students who don't connect to words on a page to key in and get interested in a subject.

Yes, in many/most cases, budget and time don't allow. But that's a shame.

[MiM]

My favored supermarket not only has baggers for the groceries, but they provide options of paper bags, or plastic bags, or reusable "environmentally friendly" bags. They'll bag the stuff up, and they ask each customer if that customer would like them to wheel the cart out to the car for them. I think that's meant for the elderly and the infirm, but they ask even able bodied folks so that nobody bitches. They'll help people load their vehicles with the groceries too, and wheel the empty cart back to the store.

My nearest supermarket likes to wheel the cart out to the car for us and wheel the empty cart back to the store because in their neighborhood, unattended shopping carts get stolen.

Don't they get locked together and released with deposit (£1 here)

No. People generally don't steal them here. They are just left open. In most malls and shopping centers here, even merchandise is left out front unattended and easily stolen. Bookstores often have tables of books outside on the sidewalk with no attendant.

The deposit isn't mainly to hinder theft. If you want to steal a cart, I am sure you can spare 1€ deposit for it (that will come with you, anyway). It is to get people to bring the carts together in places from where it's efficient to bring them back to the front of the store. You see, we have minimum wages here, so stores can't have semi-slaves running after carts from all over the parking lot.

[Hermit]

Libertarians are like atheists (and liberals) in that you might as well attempt to herd cats than organize them into some kind of coherent group.

A coherent group of libertarians is an overly ambitious expectation. I'd be happy enough to discover just one individual who is a coherent libertarian.

[Robert_S]

Nobody posted this yet?