Georgia will be only state in nation w/o an arts council

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Ahh....and herein is the rub. Many people, like myself, privately support all kinds of causes, the arts being one of them. My daughter plays violin and acts and my son plays guitar, and I love music and art in general.

The difference and distinction here that so many of you seem to fail to grasp is that I CHOOSE to support the arts and other social and animal causes with my own money. I voluntarily make donations.

What I don't have is big brother telling me what causes to support or how much I should give. That's the issue.

You're absolutely right. I mean, it's a very difficult balancing act that artists have to walk between staying within the safe bounds of the known and understood and challenging people to see differently. Too many projects where crucifixes get dunked in cow dung and pretty soon you have an outcry and calls for yanking the plug on funding. But by the same token, too many projects that try to do the same old thing without trying to break any new ground and people grow restless and wonder what good artists are if they can't grow a backbone and do something we haven't already seen 50 times. So, yeah, it's a difficult balance indeed.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Folks....look around. We have MASSIVE deficits and debt for as far as the eye can see. We cannot continue with business as usual. We need to get a grip on what is a legitimate function of government and what is not.

I strongly agree. How does it go again?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Kinds sums a lot of it up right there.

Of course, I can see "...promote the general Welfare..." being a topic of some debate.

[Jackalope]

Originally Posted by WilliamM

Yeah, I suppose that's the consensus among some, certain 16-yr olds for example, and the Tea-Partiers maybe, but ... but... Shouldn't we try to show a little more maturity than that?

Whether you believe the public expenditure for the arts is really worth-while to you in particular, shouldn't we think about the role it plays in the lives of many people, people who aren't necessarily motivated by the same things as say your average Wall Street banker, people with special talents that may some day reflect back onto our lives in positive ways that may be hard to calculate in advance?

Maturity? In case you didn't notice, YOU'RE the one who is starting to insult people over an issue. Clearly you're not really that familiar with the word, "maturity". If you can't discuss it without bringing your "16-yr olds for example, and the Tea-Partiers" comments, then you aren't worth discussing it at all.

People in almost every industry have "special talents", but other industries don't require a government subsidy to exist.

[Jackalope]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Ahh....and herein is the rub. Many people, like myself, privately support all kinds of causes, the arts being one of them. My daughter plays violin and acts and my son plays guitar, and I love music and art in general.

The difference and distinction here that so many of you seem to fail to grasp is that I CHOOSE to support the arts and other social and animal causes with my own money. I voluntarily make donations.

What I don't have is big brother telling me what causes to support or how much I should give. That's the issue. Why is government involved in many of these types of things that should be reserved for private organizations and patrons? The furor here wasn't that arts would disappear from Georgia, but rather that a government program would not be funded.

Folks....look around. We have MASSIVE deficits and debt for as far as the eye can see. We cannot continue with business as usual. We need to get a grip on what is a legitimate function of government and what is not.

Exactly.

Nobody is saying that the arts shouldn't be supported. What's being said is that support for the arts should be voluntary. Making it a function of government simply creates a jobs program.

[Jackalope]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

I strongly agree. How does it go again?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Kinds sums a lot of it up right there.

Of course, I can see "...promote the general Welfare..." being a topic of some debate.

It shouldn't be. Not if one has read the Federalist Papers and understands what the founders meant by that clause.

On the other hand, if one has not and would prefer simply to use that clause as a license to steal, then that's another matter entirely.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by Jackalope

It shouldn't be. Not if one has read the Federalist Papers and understands what the founders meant by that clause.

On the other hand, if one has not and would prefer simply to use that clause as a license to steal, then that's another matter entirely.

Well, are you going to tell us what you think that interpretation is or are you going to make us guess?