Recent political discussion has brought up the concept of the "right to health care". If you need something, is it the view of some folks that you have a right to it. In order to have a "right" first you need to understand what a right is.
For example, if you are hungry, do you have a right to food? You certainly do need it to survive. However, a right implies that someone cannot take it away from you and that someone is obligated to provide that right to you. In the current political discussion, that someone is the US government. So, getting back to food, if you are able to work and provide for yourself but choose to sit in a lounge chair on your front porch, does the government have an obligation to bring you meals? I am not talking about someone who is affirmed or disabled, but rather about someone who expects assistance because of the "right" to food. Obviously, there is no right to food. If you can provide for yourself, you are expected to do so.
Do you have a right to a residence? We certainly don't want homeless people wandering the streets but if someone is capable of providing for his/herself, does the government have an obligation to house that person? Once again, I am not talking about affirmed/disabled people. The answer is obvious, of course not. Therefore, there is no "right" to a residence.
Alexander Hamilton in 1775, said: ``The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself;
and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.''
The beginning of the Declaration of Independence reads "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness..."
Seems pretty straightforward, I suppose. The idea, in both quotations is that rights are not granted, they are things which cannot be taken away. However, that is not always true. Some rights are specified in the US Constitution (more about that below). There are times when individual rights are balanced against the community's. You would think the life part would be pretty simple in that no one can kill you. However, it can get complicated. For example, there is the question of what constitutes life? Are fetuses considered a human life? Not to abortion proponents but yes to opponents of abortion. If someone's heart is beating but the upper brain is not functioning, are they alive? Legally, the answer is no even if they can continue physical existence without assistance for a period of time. The protection of your right to life is an obligation of the state. However, in death penalty cases, someone's right to life is taken away by the state. In those cases, it is the considered judgment of the state that the crime committed was so heinous that taking away the individual's life is justified for the protection of society as a whole.
Liberty is a little tougher. The old saying is that your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Allowing individual liberty must be balanced with the good of society. The first amendment protects free speech but not speech inciting violence or endangering the public. Per the second amendment, individuals have the right to bear arms but those arms do not include things like cannons, 500 pound bombs or other mass destruction weapons. You can have consensual sex with pretty much anyone you want but not with children. Believe it or not, in many states, it is legal to have sex with animals. In Oregon, it is not a law violation to be in public nude, even in the presence of children. Liberty as a specified right cannot be taken away unless your exercise of that liberty is deemed sufficiently harmful to society as a whole. Those specific limits to individual liberties have been litigated for as long as the United States has existed, and continue today. Some liberties have even been stretched a bit. Nude dancing in strip clubs has been interpreted as free speech. I think if people want to strip nude and dance in an indoor club out of the view of anyone except those who went there to specifically see the dancers, more power to them. But calling that free speech is a stretch.
I have always found, the phrase "pursuit of happiness" pretty vague. To take away someone's pursuit of happiness is then also a vague proposition. We clearly don't want to do it but don't know exactly what it is.
Other specified rights are included in the Constitution; protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the ability to practice the religion of choice; petitioning the government for grievances; freedom of the press; no quartering of soldiers in private homes in peace time; no self-incrimination, a speedy trial, etc. However, what is important to realize is that the Bill of Rights really specifies what the government can't do to citizens rather than what it can.
With that as a preamble, is there a right to health care? Just like food, people can certainly need it, at times. As opposed to food, a majority of the time, most people don't need it. While no one wants people to die from non-treatment of curable conditions, I revert to the previous example. If someone is perfectly capable of providing care for him/herself and chooses not to, does the rest of society have an obligation to give them a free ride? Once again, I am not talking about people who cannot fend for themselves. If health care is a "right" then the government has an obligation to care for those who can afford to take care of themselves and choose not to. I have a tough time swallowing that argument. If you are ninety seven years old with peripheral artery disease, poor cardiac function, obstructive pulmonary disease, etc., and you fall and break your hip, does the government have to provide you a hip replacement? I am not talking about whether it is risky but rather is it a right? If you choose not to wear a motor cycle helmet or seat belt despite a law requiring it, do you have a right to taxpayer-funded health care if you choose not to buy insurance for yourself? If you gorge yourself up to 600 pounds and cannot leave your bed, does the government have to pay for your care or gastric bypass? If you choose to become a heroin addict and contract hepatitis via an infected needle, do you have a right to free health care from the government?
I think is a rightful role of government to help the those who cannot help themselves due to disability or impairment but that if you have the ability to provide for yourself and do not choose to do so, you are on your own. Therefore, there is no "right" to health care and those who argue for it are doing so out of a desire to have everything provided to them without effort. Of course, if enough people go that route, no one produces anything and there is no care for anyone.
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Art and Public Funding
There is always an ongoing debate about public funding, as in tax money, being used to give grants to art projects through the national Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and other public mechanisms. I have had the same debate a number of times over the years and today I was reminded of it so I thought I would make an entry about this subject.
The first problem with the system is that art, by its very nature, is so subjective that the difficulties in determining which projects should be funded are problematic. It will always be left up to the interpretation of the leaders of the NEA what constitutes worthwhile projects. Inevitably, there will be public disagreement about whether a project is worthy. A large part of this is that the very people chosen to be a part of the NEA are not going to be in the mainstream of American education or values. Anyone who believes that a crucifix in a jar of urine is not offensive and is worthy of public funding is clearly outside the mainstream of public opinion. The art community will, of course, argue that the very nature of art is to be provocative. While that may be true, it in no way obligates the use of tax funding to subsidize the making of such projects.
My older brother, who is one of the smartest people I have ever known, once told me that a project like that was art because it “evoked an emotional response”. I argued in response to him that if someone was to make a bowel movement on the hood of my car, it would certainly evoke an emotional response in me and I wouldn’t consider it art. Additionally, what I would do to that person would certainly evoke an emotional response from him/her and that person, while traveling to the medical facility, would not consider my response performance art. It would, however, be nice if the police said no charges could be filed because I was just doing some “art”.
After the conversation with my brother, the analytical side of me reared its head and I decided I needed some objective criteria for what I considered art. So, here are a few that I came up with in a short time:
1) If I can do it, it isn’t good. I am absolutely terrible at painting anything other than a wall in a house. If art work consists of randomly throwing something at a canvas, scribbling nonsensical figures, pouring something to have it splatter, dropping something out of a flying plane, or especially, using bodily fluids, it sucks because I can do that. I am not sure who decided that three I-beams stacked up and painted orange is art but you see that same crappy thing in front of buildings everywhere. Once again, I can do it, so it sucks.
2) If you have to explain it to me, it isn’t good. Quality pieces of art have some intrinsic beauty or force that allows one to just know it has merit when seen. If I have to listen to some long-winded explanation about how it represents mans constant struggle to revive the extinct Dodo bird, the artist is not an artist, he is a bullshit artist. I can look at anything Rembrandt painted and just be awed by the lighting and mastery contained in the painting. Anyone can look at a Michelangelo statue and have no question of the mastery in his hands. I don’t need Rembrandt or Michelangelo to come back from the dead and explain it to me.
3) If you can’t sell it, art is your hobby, not your job. I play the guitar pretty well and sing while I am playing. That does not make me a professional musician. I do not expect the United States government to fund my upcoming CD costs. I don’t believe that Brad Paisley, Josh Groban, or the Rolling Stones expect funding for their recordings, either. If no one likes what you are producing enough to purchase it, you should at least consider the idea that your art work is not good. There are thousands of “actors” in Los Angeles who have never made dime from the entertainment industry. If you are making your living bussing tables, you are a potential actor but not a professional one. In fact, you are a bus boy. A struggling artist is a pseudonym for someone who can’t make a living from art. My previously mentioned brother is a very successful writer but he always had a job in addition to writing and didn’t expect taxpayers to subsidize his work.
4) Funding for art education is a legitimate use of tax dollars. The idea of having a broad educational experience for children in public schools, including art and music is a good thing. When you consider the current state of commercial television and the pop recording industry, it is clearly in the interest of all people in the country to have kids exposed to some quality. Classical music, jazz, poetry, classical literature, and art all deserve a place in education. I will also add that they should be in addition to, not in place of, reading, mathematics and science. I would much prefer kids to know the story behind the 1812 Overture than what “I’m gonna do with all the junk in my trunk”.
5) Good art and literature stays good. Charles Dickens books are still good all these years after he has departed. Leonardo DaVinci's works still inspire awe despite the hundreds of years since he produced them. He is another one who doesn't have to come back and explain them. Anything that is trendy and doesn't stand the test of time exposes itself for what is is... bad.
When the outlay of public funds for art projects is left in the hands of a small group of people chosen because of their out of the mainstream radical views, it is inevitable that curious and outrageous decisions will be the result. Their response is the typical left response of “You just don’t get it” because anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid. Recognizing trash when you see it is not one of the prerequisites for stupidity, however, not recognizing it certainly is.
The first problem with the system is that art, by its very nature, is so subjective that the difficulties in determining which projects should be funded are problematic. It will always be left up to the interpretation of the leaders of the NEA what constitutes worthwhile projects. Inevitably, there will be public disagreement about whether a project is worthy. A large part of this is that the very people chosen to be a part of the NEA are not going to be in the mainstream of American education or values. Anyone who believes that a crucifix in a jar of urine is not offensive and is worthy of public funding is clearly outside the mainstream of public opinion. The art community will, of course, argue that the very nature of art is to be provocative. While that may be true, it in no way obligates the use of tax funding to subsidize the making of such projects.
My older brother, who is one of the smartest people I have ever known, once told me that a project like that was art because it “evoked an emotional response”. I argued in response to him that if someone was to make a bowel movement on the hood of my car, it would certainly evoke an emotional response in me and I wouldn’t consider it art. Additionally, what I would do to that person would certainly evoke an emotional response from him/her and that person, while traveling to the medical facility, would not consider my response performance art. It would, however, be nice if the police said no charges could be filed because I was just doing some “art”.
After the conversation with my brother, the analytical side of me reared its head and I decided I needed some objective criteria for what I considered art. So, here are a few that I came up with in a short time:
1) If I can do it, it isn’t good. I am absolutely terrible at painting anything other than a wall in a house. If art work consists of randomly throwing something at a canvas, scribbling nonsensical figures, pouring something to have it splatter, dropping something out of a flying plane, or especially, using bodily fluids, it sucks because I can do that. I am not sure who decided that three I-beams stacked up and painted orange is art but you see that same crappy thing in front of buildings everywhere. Once again, I can do it, so it sucks.
2) If you have to explain it to me, it isn’t good. Quality pieces of art have some intrinsic beauty or force that allows one to just know it has merit when seen. If I have to listen to some long-winded explanation about how it represents mans constant struggle to revive the extinct Dodo bird, the artist is not an artist, he is a bullshit artist. I can look at anything Rembrandt painted and just be awed by the lighting and mastery contained in the painting. Anyone can look at a Michelangelo statue and have no question of the mastery in his hands. I don’t need Rembrandt or Michelangelo to come back from the dead and explain it to me.
3) If you can’t sell it, art is your hobby, not your job. I play the guitar pretty well and sing while I am playing. That does not make me a professional musician. I do not expect the United States government to fund my upcoming CD costs. I don’t believe that Brad Paisley, Josh Groban, or the Rolling Stones expect funding for their recordings, either. If no one likes what you are producing enough to purchase it, you should at least consider the idea that your art work is not good. There are thousands of “actors” in Los Angeles who have never made dime from the entertainment industry. If you are making your living bussing tables, you are a potential actor but not a professional one. In fact, you are a bus boy. A struggling artist is a pseudonym for someone who can’t make a living from art. My previously mentioned brother is a very successful writer but he always had a job in addition to writing and didn’t expect taxpayers to subsidize his work.
4) Funding for art education is a legitimate use of tax dollars. The idea of having a broad educational experience for children in public schools, including art and music is a good thing. When you consider the current state of commercial television and the pop recording industry, it is clearly in the interest of all people in the country to have kids exposed to some quality. Classical music, jazz, poetry, classical literature, and art all deserve a place in education. I will also add that they should be in addition to, not in place of, reading, mathematics and science. I would much prefer kids to know the story behind the 1812 Overture than what “I’m gonna do with all the junk in my trunk”.
5) Good art and literature stays good. Charles Dickens books are still good all these years after he has departed. Leonardo DaVinci's works still inspire awe despite the hundreds of years since he produced them. He is another one who doesn't have to come back and explain them. Anything that is trendy and doesn't stand the test of time exposes itself for what is is... bad.
When the outlay of public funds for art projects is left in the hands of a small group of people chosen because of their out of the mainstream radical views, it is inevitable that curious and outrageous decisions will be the result. Their response is the typical left response of “You just don’t get it” because anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid. Recognizing trash when you see it is not one of the prerequisites for stupidity, however, not recognizing it certainly is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)