How About Letting Me Decide What I Don’t Want?
Stephen Harper was elected with a 36.3% share of the 64.5% of Canadians who voted in the last general election — by what legitimate right does that tiny minority have to tell me what I don’t want?
In his first detailed defence of $45-million in controversial cuts to arts and culture funding, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper called his party’s decisions good governance and said the government must walk “a fine line” between providing financial stability and “funding things that people actually don’t want.”
What possible right does a minority that small have to make any legitimate decision about the direction this country should or should not take on anything?
If there was any real democracy still left in this country a minority that small would consider itself a caretaker government and do nothing more than maintain the status quo while Canadians decided what they wanted to do in the next election.
Truly, if it wasn’t so sad it would be laughable.
Why should “art” that no one sees or cares about be funded on the public dime?
If that’s your bag great. You pay for it. Find benifactors or patrons. Or actually produce something people care enough to pay to see.
Quit looking to the tax payers to pay for government funded counter-culture.
The petty whining of the affluent.
Most if not all the programs cut were designed to reward commercial success. Another freaking myth that badly needs correction. The Canada Council for the Arts actually got a minor boost in funding and they are the arm’s length agency that actually gives individual grants to artists based on the merit of their content as judged by a jury of peers. It is the only agency/program that operates on a non-commercial basis. So in fact, the Harper government has not cut programs that fund counter-culture nastyboy. Cherry picking a few projects that are deemed ideologically offensive and YET commercially successful is not public funding for artists who have absolutely no following or commercial relevance.
Beijing York
Most if not all the programs cut were designed to reward commercial success.
If the projects are commercialy successful then why do they need government financing?
I’d far rather see my tax dollars given to emerging artists of any genre than to see them handed out in multi-million dollar corporate welfare donations nastyboy.
I’d like to see a world where nobody has the power to force other people to do (or not do) anything. I’ve long since given up hope that “democracy” is the way to achieve that ideal.
stageleft
I’d far rather see my tax dollars given to emerging artists of any genre than to see them handed out in multi-million dollar corporate welfare donations nastyboy.
Not an either or situation.
Art and business should stand or fall on their own merits. Can’t make a profit? Maybe you shouldn’t be in business. Can’t make a living on your own as an artist? Maybe you just suck at your art.
You should buy my healthcare. You should buy my education. You should pay for my housing and a home for my mom ’cause she’s getting old and you should definitely fabricate an entire living for people who produce art that no one is will to pay to see.
The petty whining of the entitled underachiever.
For a very (very) long time the value of the contributions made by certain segments of society to that society have been acknowledged…. among them artists and story tellers who, through their crafts, show and tell society things they may not necessarily want to see or hear, but should.
Read your history nastyboy, there is a very good reason why the kings kept fools, and why those fools had the power and privilege that they did.
Entitled underachiever?
We buy each other healthcare. I have probably cost the healthcare system more than I have paid in taxes (as a percentage of the taxes I have paid throughout my life used in the Healthcare system).
We pay for each others education. I am a University student, and my tuition (and the tuition of every Canadian student) is subsidized by the tax payer. I have probably cost the Federal Government more in tuition subsidies than I have contributed in taxes (as a percentage of my taxes the Federal government spends to subsidize tuition).
I have lived in subsidized housing, and many of my friends still do. I have probably cost several orders of government more in housing subsidies than I have paid in taxes (as a percentage of my taxes put towards housing subsidies).
I pay taxes according to the same tax schedule you do, and I have no complaints. I don’t mind being subsidized in several ways because I know that when I am out of school and working full-time, I pay taxes in part to support others through the same subsidies I enjoyed. I take from the system what I need, and I give back to the system what I must when I can for the system to continue. This is what’s called a “social safety net” – and exists so that people who need a little help can get it when necessary, and contribute to it when they can.
If you have a problem with my “entitlements”, that’s fine, but one look at my resume (or the resumes of many, many others) will tell you I am anything but an underachiever.
“Why should “art” that no one sees or cares about be funded on the public dime?”
An assertion based on what information? The fact that these cuts have caused such an uproar would indicate that people do indeed care about the nurturance of culture. How very conservative to assume the royal stance that all must share in one’s petty disdain. Nasty doesn’t care, thus no one cares. Yet recent reports indicate that the arts and cultural sectors are a very significant contributor to the national economy and provide many thousands of jobs.
“Can’t make a profit? Maybe you shouldn’t be in business.”
Hi Mr Harper thanks for teh big taxpayer handout on the cusp of teh election. Yours truly GM.
ps You are really swell and a stand up guy.
Indeed, when it comes to handing out millions upon millions of tax dollars, nasty and his ilk prefer to see that money going to petroleum cartels and other trustworthy, foreign controlled interests. Arts? Culture? Bah. That sort of thing might give people cause to question or consider things in life and conservatives can’t have that. Do as you’re told. Critical thinking is elitist and bad. Stay stupid, be a happy reactionary. In the absence of evidence, make up garbage assertions and repeat them until you convince yourself. Conform or starve.
Pretty Shaved Ape
The fact that these cuts have caused such an uproar would indicate that people do indeed care about the nurturance of culture.
The only uproar I hear is coming from the “artists” that might have to try a little harder to get non-government financing. Or go out and get a real job.
Indeed, when it comes to handing out millions upon millions of tax dollars, nasty and his ilk prefer to see that money going to petroleum cartels and other trustworthy, foreign controlled interests.
Huh?
I said “Art AND BUSINESS should stand or fall on their own merit.” Last time I checked “petroleum cartels” belong in the category of business.
I prefer to see that money go to health care, education, feeding the poorest of the poor. Trivial things like that. Question or consider things in life on your own dime.
If the projects are commercialy successful then why do they need government financing?
Cultural goods can only become commercially successful with public support because our market is fragile (there are no economies of scale to offset our small population over a vast territory). Add to that, the fact that our screens, air waves, magazine stands are overwhelmed by US cultural products.
Quebec has a very strong and vibrant cultural sector because of generous public support that exceeds that of any other province. And it is not only due to language. Quebec recognized the need to protect their language and culture, and not be assimilated into English-speaking Canada. Federally and provincially, it was also recognized that public investment in arts and culture would prevent us from being assimilated by the US and preserve our distinction as a sovereign nation.
Further, every nation on the planet recognizes the economic and social benefits of having their own vibrant arts and culture. Without it, there are no tourism dollars. Without it, young minds don’t thrive.
Cultural goods can only become commercially successful with public support because our market is fragile
Yeah, the Beatles had lots of grant money coming to Liverpool in 1961 and 1962…*that’s* why they were so successful.
Not.
By the way, I’ve been a working musician and artist (among my many other jobs) for over 40 years. Happily, every dime I ever made doing either was paid to me voluntarily, not stolen through taxation and given to me by bureaucrats and politicians.
That makes me proud of every penny.