>Yes, and I have not doubt that it is the reasons for [why American students are so dumb] that that we would disagree profoundly on. (snipped a bunch of irrelevancies about teachers and CEO's and CFO's and a governor)…<
This addresses nothing (!) of what I have said about why many conservatives reject the current education system. You claimed in your message to Michelle that “Conservatives are against the NEA like they are the public school system”. I told you a few reasons why this is true and then I told you that nevertheless conservatives were not against public education. What do I now read from you? Irrelevant drivel! Dear me. I want to hear your opinion on my response to the point you yourself have already made, namely, the validity or invalidity of my reasons for why “Conservatives are against the NEA like they are the public school system”. We can get to disagreements on the cause of the problems later.
>How do we judge the worthiness of anything? ...on whether or not it makes money? How typical.<
Value is subjective. Not everyone will value the same things at the same time. People buy on the basis of their subjective determinations. This is what makes a market. To force the creation, display and maintenance of a good that likely by no means has a place in the market, this, by coercing funds from the public, is simply Draconian. You call that which cannot survive on its own in the market “education”. It is not education-- it is trash.
>Such humility. I doubt anyone should be forced to hear you play either, Johannes.<
Well I have already admitted as much, and neither should anyone be forced to pay for trash masquerading as “art”. My performances are valuable to me. I enjoy them. Should I desire compensation for them, I will submit them to the market. If the market will not support them, I have no right to force it to support them. Effectively, the market will have claimed them trash, and so it will have left me alone to use my resources to support the survival of my performances. If I deem them not worth the sacrifice to give them life, then they will die the death they deserve. The market deems roads, ports, education, libraries, certain works of art, worth supporting. And so with no problem the market helps facilitate the survival of these things. You do not trust the market and so you aim to circumvent it, forcing the participants therein to support what they otherwise would reject as trash. This is Draconian.
Btw: I have not uttered snide comments aimed at insulting you personally, but have instead addressed issues separate from your person. If you would prefer to engage in a war of sarcasm instead of a war concerning the issues, I will ignore you as a pure nitwit should be ignored.
>But they should be forced to have an education and have the tools made available to get it. Which was my original point.<
But you aim to force them to have your tools, some of which likely could by no means survive anywhere and others of which would even insult the very core of some students' identities. This is not education, this is Draconian. We as a society have agreed to fund public education, as it is a marketable commodity. We have not agreed to fund things that do not emanate from the interests of their patrons, things that even directly assault the identities of said patrons. There is no reason why market participants, thus insulted, should continue to support their own insults. Yet, this is precisely what your “worthy” organizations have forced them to do. If an “artist” wants to assault others, or create his insulting work, he should be held accountable to the tastes of those whose funds pay for the work. When the Federal Government funds art, those tastes include my own. Therefore I am allowed to judge such “works”. Should I judge them worthless or an affront to my existence, then it is only reasonable that I do everything I can not to pay for them. The system is unfortunately structured such that if I do not pay, no one pays. So be it. I am not responsible for the structure of the system. I am only responsible for adhering to my own principles. I therefore must work to extricate myself from supporting that which I deem worthless and/or a detriment. This is why I must work to destroy the NEA.
Art did quite well in this world long before the NEA was established. Indeed, it did wonderfully before the NEA. It will continue to do well when the NEA is gone. The market will make sure to keep the things it deems worth preserving, and it will reject trash.
>I support arts (publically) in so far as I support education. Ignorance isn't bliss. You should be forced to understand how to add and subtract to the betterment of us all.<
But I should not be forced to buy direct insults to everything I am. If you think I should be forced to this, then I have no other choice but to work within the system against you, this, to destroy the thing I think I must not support. There is nothing wrong here.
You do not want roads? Fine, lobby against them. I assure you that here you will be on the wrong side of the market. I do not want to fund women who masturbate with chocolate bars? Then I should not be forced to fund them. I am certain this “commodity” will survive quite handsomely on its own in the market. I do not want to support performances of ‘AIDS infested blood' being thrown into audiences? Then I should not be forced to support it. No doubt in the market this “commodity” will the death it richly deserves. Only by a Draconian system can such trash thrive.
>Spare us the profane artists routine. (Tainted blood thrown at the audience? glad I wasn't there for that one.)<
This “artist” and many like him, was supported by my tax dollars, and so I aim to do what I can never to buy such trash again. This is only reasonable. If you do not agree, then you nevertheless cannot reasonably expect me simply to do nothing but allow the fruit of my labor to be used for what I deem pure trash. I must at least try to put an end to such wastefulness. There is nothing wrong here. Some “commodities” simply cannot survive on their own, and they should die.
>I just saw a listing of supported artists by the Texas Endowment. I was amazed at the number of country singers, musicals etc. that were being funded. I might argue that those things aren't worthy either.<
If you feel this way, then fight against them. I would not at all complain against you. I happen to believe you should not be forced to support what cannot survive on its own. Art, libraries, books, mathematics, etc., etc., would survive and thrive without the NEA or without even our current public school structure. Public education will even survive because society knows it to be a valuable commodity. Some of what is artificially propped up as “art” simply would die because very few in society will value it. Such things have no business surviving unless those market participants who value them want to use their own resources to preserve them. Art is who we are, and that which society would reject is not art-- it is trash. We won't support orchestras? Then we are not orchestras and the whole country should not be forced to support what it is not. I am sure Beethoven will survive, even if only in my studio.
You can scream about education all you want, but you cannot package trash in a wrapper and call it “education”. If people do not want it, they should not be forced to buy it. The thing is as simple as that.
>Even your own Lipman would roll over in his grave. But don't tell me there isn't something there for everyone that isn't worth my few bucks.<
No doubt, and no doubt these things can survive without the NEA if people think them worth their few bucks. Nevertheless, there are things there that I personally find so reprehensible that I by principle cannot rest until they are destroyed. It would be preferable were the NEA system structured such that it disallows public funding of brutal insults to people's sensibilities. But alas it is not, so I cannot by principle do nothing. There is nothing wrong with struggling to buy only what I deem worth buying. Is there a problem here? I can see none.
>Me to a hypothetical artist: “I suggest you work to produce something this barbarian can understand.”
The response of a nitwit: “Or it isn't worth anything? Heh, heh, I have enough futile challenges in my life right now, Johannes.”<
The point of my statement was that one who labors to produce a commodity has no right to demand that commodity be purchased merely because he himself deems it worth purchasing. He must, despite his grand intellect, produce to the tastes of those whose will purchase the commodity. This is common sense. If you want to insult me, go on. You merely admit, in the fashion of nitwits, that you have no argument.
>Wow, maybe you should study some music history before I dare touch [the notion that Beethoven, Bach, Mahler, etc., were not held accountable to the tastes of their patrons].<
I have indeed studied music history and in every case these composers were subject to the tastes of those who funded them, whether king, church leader, wealthy patron or free public. This is the point. They were not left free to “create” and then supported by some heartless system for “products” that their true patrons otherwise would reject.
>Besides, [great modern composers] are around. It is just that their ideas progressed and yours maybe didn't, so you don't understand what you don't understand.<
Perhaps. Nevertheless the notion that their ideas progressed and mine did not is the result of pure subjectiveness. To even approach supporting this asinine statement you must be willing to allow your modern composers' ideas to be supported by the tastes of their patrons. If they are federally funded, then I am one of those patrons. If the collective judgement of we patrons is such that we deem their ideas regressive and not progressive, then while you will not have technically lost your argument here, you will have effectively lost it. The heart of your argument is metaphyical in nature. So to make the claim while expecting thinking men to accept it is but another futile challenge in your life.
>It has nothing to do with 'like'. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to appreciate the importance of rocket science.<
Obviously not, but you must somehow enjoy the fruit of rocket science to appreciate it. I willingly support rocket science because I find it a valuable commodity, this, for myriad reasons. Merely having the ability to see a rocket launch is perhaps worth the money to me. Others may think it an utter waste of money, and so lobby against it. They have every right to do so, but with the promise of wealth that space exploration makes, I hardly think they will find themselves on the right side of the market here. If they somehow find they are on the right side, then I will always have the option (given that my resources are not stolen away from me by your “worthy” organizations) to fund rocket science myself. The point is the vast majority of market players have use for rocket science and is by no means insulted by it. Rocket science will exist because the market wants it. It just so happens the structures in place allow some rocket science to find support in the government. The market allows this with no problem because it understands that such an arrangement ultimately helps its own efficiency. In other words, it collectively understands it to be of value.
Only a victim of a Draconian system will continually support that which insults him and that for which he has utterly no use (i.e. trash). The federal government should not be in the business of forcing the market to support that which it simply does not want.
Some “art” has nothing at all to do with the wishes of the market. It survives artificially and is not quickly eradicated simply because a large part of the market recognizes it as inert (just as is most trash). Should the market come to see it as toxic, then this “art” will be threatened. This is where we are currently with the NEA. Should the NEA not change its structure to disallow funding of toxic “art”, it will be threatened until it either changes or dies.
>Me: Let the artists starve.
You: Not even a piece of cake?<
If they produce according to the wants of their patrons, then the artists may have whatever they can afford—even cake, if they want.
>Eat your veggies, they are good for you.<
If I want veggies, and I find them available in the market, and no one like you forces my resources away from me to fund pure trash, or inhibits me in any other Draconian fashion, then I will have veggies, as I personally value them as being good for me. |
