Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As the battle rages on over what should and should not be displayed in museums, which statues can be out in public, as well as other "public displays" my question is simple:
Why should any of these things be under the government's domain? Where in the Constitution does it provide the context for funding of these endeavors?
So why are conservatives/Republicans so angered by all the changes when it comes to these things?
Shouldn't the solution be privatization and free market enterprise?
If you want a statue to the KKK, Jesus, Big Bird, or George Floyd you can erect it on your rightful property and if so inclined charge folks to visit it.
Why should taxpayers (well, even exist) be forced to foot the bill for these things?
I'm not a conservative but I don't like destruction of things. They should have gone about the process at a local level legally to request they be moved.
As for who wants what, I don't see a big trend in erecting any statues, so it's kind of a moot point.
I'm not a conservative but I don't like destruction of things. They should have gone about the process at a local level legally to request they be moved.
As for who wants what, I don't see a big trend in erecting any statues, so it's kind of a moot point.
First, thanks for the response. I noticed that our conservative friends haven't chimed in here.
I think there's no need for publicly-funded museums/statues/monuments. I don't believe in taxation so that ends the argument right there anyway.
But I can't help but think that this all could be solved by conservatives/Republicans if they stood on the principle of limited government/free market.
Destroying them is a bit harsh. I'll give you that. The government, if we have to have one, could auction them off to private collectors. The taxpayer would get the benefit of no longer having to fund their maintenance and the money from auction could be spent on infrastructure...or whatever the hell it is these parasitic crooks do with our money.
If you want to see them, pay Joe's Museum fee of $25 and stare at a statue in his living room. I got no beef with that. It's voluntary.
I'm a student of history, so I don't like to see historical monuments torn down. And many (most?) of these statues were erected around a hundred years ago, so I don't see what current tax payers have to do with it.
And as someone else said, mobs of people going around tearing things down isn't a good look. Would you want that going on down the street from your house? I wouldn't.
It is a Systematic Purge of American History and Culture. Supported and promoted by Democrats, the Media, Social Media, Corporate America, Entertainment, Education and Local and State Governments. One must erase and eliminate history and evidence of the past before recreating a new one that fits the new narrative and advances the agenda.
As the battle rages on over what should and should not be displayed in museums, which statues can be out in public, as well as other "public displays" my question is simple:
Why should any of these things be under the government's domain? Where in the Constitution does it provide the context for funding of these endeavors?
So why are conservatives/Republicans so angered by all the changes when it comes to these things?
Shouldn't the solution be privatization and free market enterprise?
If you want a statue to the KKK, Jesus, Big Bird, or George Floyd you can erect it on your rightful property and if so inclined charge folks to visit it.
Why should taxpayers (well, even exist) be forced to foot the bill for these things?
The reason is simple: Because we should be preserving history. I am not a conservative, and I ABSOLUTELY don't think these statues should be on the town square, the university gathering place, or anywhere else that it might 'glorify' the darkest parts of our history, or make people to feel they should worship these non-heros, but history is history. We MUST preserve it, so it is not forgotten, and a museum is the right place.
A perfect example is the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC.
People can choose to visit, or not. (people should not have to choose to 'not visit' the town square.)
I am in the camp that feels we should NEVER forget who Hitler, the KKK or other characters in USA History are.
I don't agree with tearing down statues, but to avoid that from happening, we MUST provide an alternative, and my feeling is Museums are the best option. Put them in an exhibit, and people can decide to learn about history, or not. We should also teach it in school.
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 27 days ago)
11,785 posts, read 5,795,007 times
Reputation: 14208
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
First, thanks for the response. I noticed that our conservative friends haven't chimed in here.
I think there's no need for publicly-funded museums/statues/monuments. I don't believe in taxation so that ends the argument right there anyway.
But I can't help but think that this all could be solved by conservatives/Republicans if they stood on the principle of limited government/free market.
Destroying them is a bit harsh. I'll give you that. The government, if we have to have one, could auction them off to private collectors. The taxpayer would get the benefit of no longer having to fund their maintenance and the money from auction could be spent on infrastructure...or whatever the hell it is these parasitic crooks do with our money.
If you want to see them, pay Joe's Museum fee of $25 and stare at a statue in his living room. I got no beef with that. It's voluntary.
I find it funny that you say conservatives should change but don't include that if liberals have a problem with it - they should act like responsible adults and try to make changes lawfully and without violence. Liberals are acting like the petulant child who is given everything and has no regard for others.
We have publicly funded museums ect so "all" people have the right to view them. Many people couldn't afford to pay to see something. When traveling, we try to visit all the landmarks and statues to learn about th culture or history of that area. As it is many of these are attractions are costing more than families can afford. Not everyone has $60-$80 for a 2 - 3 hour visit to a museum.
So now even the Museum of Natural History will be removing a statue due to mob rule.
Does anyone have links to stories about statues that were actually relocated to a museum? Most of the stories I have read have the statues removed and put in storage until it can be decided where they will go. Years later they are still not in a museum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
