Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Government Funding for the Arts

At heart, I have very libertarian views regarding government spending. I believe that the government should only exist for purposes deemed necessary by the people it serves. These purposes tend to be related to creating laws, interpreting, and enforcing them for purposes of preserving our livelihood and freedom equally. These are things that we cannot do as individuals and that's why we have an organized leadership. Art appreciation, however admirable, is something that we can do ourselves. We don't need to elect people to do it for us.

The National Endowment for the Arts is an example of an unnecessary and unjust expense being laid on the American taxpayer. Although the funding of each artist is voted on in democratic style, the effect is not in the interest of the majority who paid for the grant in the first place. If the NEA were to specifically empower schools and museums equally, this might be more just, but the money is spent more on funding individual artists. If money were spent more in the name of education supporting the arts on a broad scale, society would benefit much more. Instead of simply "subsidizing" the art culture, we could be providing opportunities in education to people who might want them, thus expanding their freedoms.

In short, art is not something that everyone needs or wants. For this reason, we shouldn't force everyone to buy it. If someone likes art, they have the freedom to buy or make it themselves. If the NEA contributed to societal culture in a more substantial way, I would be more receptive to the idea, but as it exists now, government funding is unnecessary. In the interest of necessary government functioning in an effective and fair way, I believe government funding of art should be eliminated, and the people should be left to their own artistic aspirations.

No comments: