Indy’s debate over “arts” funding?

I’ve just about had it with all the fighting over “public money.”  The crying over “arts” funding, stem cell research funding, war funding, this and that funding is unforgivably stupid.

As more and more people lose their homes, jobs and lives to taxation, we should be asking about the real costs:

How many people must lose their homes to “adequately fund” an artist who smears dung on a picture of Virgin Mary 

How many jobs, how many businesses, opportunities and freedoms must we surrender to our tax god?

How many people must die to feed our machines of subsidy, regulation, litigation and war?

My answer would be zero.  But that’s apparently not the collective answer of voters, is it?

Everybody’s got a “pet” government program.  For some, it’s road-building, in spite of the fact that these expensive, corruption-riddled subsidies killed our public transportation systems.  Others believe that “welfare” to the poor is the whole reason to have government, though you have to be nuts to think that rich folk’s money actually goes to poor people.

Probably most of us can’t imagine that schools could exist without politicians.  That’s why the success of homeschooling presents such a problem for politicians and union leaders.

Interestingly, one of the oldest subsidies/government programs, one that predated even public schools or healthcare, is art.

Almost always, subsidized art has been used as a medium of propaganda, or at least aggrandizement of the wealthy and powerful patrons.

Not surprisingly, non-subsidized artists have been agents of change, insurgence and revolution.

In today’s USA, even with all our well-publicized subsidies of things like the aforementioned dung-smeared Virgin Mary or the dung-brained Robert Mapplethorpe, 90% of all art is created on private funding. 

That is, I believe, pretty healthy.  Of course I’d rather see the number climb to 100%, now that citizens are tightening our belts and even losing our homes, jobs and opportunities at record rates.  It’s only reasonable that as our individual situations become more dire, that we start snipping away at political frippery…especially that frippery that has a bad history of historical revisionism and propaganda.

After all, do you want politicians to determine what is and isn’t art?

C’mon…our OPM addiction (Other People’s Money) is literally killing us.

The money is taken by violence, used in offensive, blasphemous, violent and deadly ways, and some dare call it “art?” 

I say it’s a fatal disease.  An illegal/unconstitutional one, at that.

I say that the 10% of art that can’t find an audience other than politicians should die so that the rest of us may live in peace and justice. 

What do you say?  Do you say we should continue the blood and theft to subsidize people who can’t find a buyer for their work?

Say it in the voting booth.



The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. I am in full agreement with you on this. So much of our tax money are wasted on unconstitutional BS while we are being bled like stuck pigs. People losing homes, going to jail, etc for the tax man! So much crap like this art funding is snuck through as ‘pork barrel’ spending.
    I like the fact that you are for controlled constitutional spending.
    Does Indiana have a line item veto for the governor? If not it should be! I also think the President should have that power as well.
    I do not think it is the governments place to fund art. Period. Even for something like the Statue of Liberty, which I admire proudly. I would also go so far as argue something like dung flung portraits of the Virgin Mary aren’t constitutionally protected, but that is me.
    Personally, I believe, art such as that is driven up in value, only because of controversy. Usually art doesn’t get any value until the artist is dead, unless of coarse, it is controversial.
    I wonder how much a life-sized bronze sculpture of a prone Ben Bernanke with Ron Paul standing over him with a jackboot on his neck would go for on e-bay?…:) Now that would be art, but then again, that is just me…:)

  2. I have to check myself on the previous response. I get fuming mad when the Virgin Mary or Christ is disrespected is such vile ways. Freedom is what Libertarianism is all about and the Ron Paul R3volution. These are movements about protection of freedom and liberty but on the same token they are about rule of law and constitutional spending. But the arguement is whether government and tax payers should foot the bill for disgusting art, or any art for that matter, I say no way!
    Although art and expression is not what the original intent was behind the freedom of speech.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: