Wiz “my rule would probably be that taxpayer funds would subsidise ticket prices by a maximum of 50%.”

And how much would they subsidise “Rolling Stones” or “Police” tours tickets when filling the same concert halls on the off days of the week which the orchestras cannot fill?

My “rule” would be the taxpayer be left to decide for themselves.

Private individuals using the monies, left in their pockets from lower taxes, selecting the classical or otherwise entertainment of their choice or maybe putting that same monies into a house deposit or whatever other discretionary choice takes their fancy.

As for “If a Moldavian nose flute ensemble can remain profitable with 50% subsidisation, “

I chose a “Moldavian nose flute ensemble” for the obvious reasons,
It does not represent any “mainstream” Australian interest
It has no “characteristic” associated with Australia

There is no point in government funding “marginal” pursuits, especially when the government has no clue as to the public demand for any “cultural” support over other worthy causes. like baby bonuses, pensions, health, education and military spending.

If émigré Moldavians want to spend their own tax savings on their nose flute ensembles, let them.

I will spend my tax savings on what suites me, maybe start collecting antique French ticklers (as in whatever tickles my girlfriends fancy).

I agree with what Pericles wrote

“a classical/jazz music station in Sydney, has been operating for over thirty years without any government funding. I am sure there are many similar instances around the country of the arts standing on its own two feet, and taking full responsibility for their existence.”

And

“The average taxpayer has less sympathy with grant-dependent luvvies than you might think.”

Krudd cannot afford to play “lady bountiful” by diverting tax cuts he endorsed in the election.

There is a wave of major economic problems about to land on his desk.

Whatever he does, he is going to look pretty bad (incidentally, Howard and Co would have dealt with them in the liberal way using options “ideologically” unavailable to the socialists).

Col Rouge > "Your desire to surrender your personal discretion and choices to the state, presumably for "security" or due to lack of imagination / motivation, has resulted in you merely "existing"."

Well, your imagination seems to be functioning well enough:

Col Rouge > "I suspect you work in the public sector, part of some monolithic bureaucracy, which regulates and prescribes your every action."

Private 'sector'. Clients include companies, individuals and one organisation that is partly funded by the state. Your divination skills are greatly lacking, however your ability to be belligerent for the sake of it seems well-rehearsed.

I requested that you describe your extreme user-pays ideology in more detail - to define where the lines should be drawn, if any, to mark the boundary between what is publicly-owned and what is privately owned. You couldn't do that so eventually you respond with sneering contempt - "I would not change my life for your existence ever."

Because I asked you questions about your Utopia, you assumed that I seek a Utopia as well:

Col Rouge > "Somehow the promises of "expert" townplanners and their associates, with noses in the public trough, has failed to generate the utopian aspirations which you presume."

Who on earth do you think should do town planning, if not qualified town planners?

I am willing to give ear to anyone's ideas, especially if they are able to elucidate them clearly. You have not been able to do so with your 'Privatopia' concept, and quickly become belligerent when questioned. You cannot explain how a ground-up rebuild of our society (necessary to implement your Privatopia) is either possible or desirable.

Col Rouge > "Reality is, when asked, you lack literary ability to defend the process you here claim to support."

Nowhere in any of my posts did I implicitly or explicitly claim to support a particular 'process' or ideology. My literary ability is sound. At the end of the day, it is like this: YOU have an inflexible, radical ideology. It is not up to me to wipe your bottom when you can't detail your ideology/case properly.