But you want to ignore the fact that HUGE amounts of art gets created in this country without federal funding and that fact indicates that federal funding is unnecessary. The US would not revert to barbarism tomorrow were the NEA to be eliminated.
Jorj said this:
The roll of the federal gov't is pretty explicitly spelled out in the US Constitution. I don't recall seeing one reference to the support of the arts. If are gov't is going to do that, they should pass an amendment to make it official.
Now if the provisions of the Constitution can be ignored to the point where federal support of the arts can be justified, then why not this:
yale.edu
or this:
azimuth.harcourtcollege.com
or, of more current interest, this:
eff.org
In fact, they can be more easily justified constitutionally then the NEA. Law enforcement and defense are legitimate government responsibilities.
The problem with your position is that there are no boundaries to it. Such reasoning can be used to justify a great multitude of things. And if you think there are not those ready and willing to take advantage of such a situation, think "Attorney General".
I understand you think your goal is noble. Keep in mind, though, that old saying: "The streets of hell are paved with good intentions." The intentions of Mao in the Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot in Cambodia, looked at from a certain point of view, could be considered noble. The results were evil, though.
OK. I'm done. |
