Col, how is it twisting words? It's just the practical outcome of your unprovable and subjective judgement that "Individuals are better at making choices with their own resources than government is". Which in itself is twisting the reality - the only thing the government decides is what tiny amount of money to give to the arts. The decisions about exactly what music should be supported are made, as I said, by professional musicians and educated music-lovers.

Ultimately your position is your prerogative. But let me ask you this - if you had the choice to opt out of sacrificing a few cents of each paycheque towards Art funding, but were then not permitted to attend publicly-funded concerts, would you take it?

wizofaus asks:

>>Pericles - who said anything about lectures?<<

I was responding to ybgirp, who was most certainly talking about lectures.

"When confronted with a masterpiece they saw nothing they were used to and became almost angry when asked to talk about what they saw. By the end of the year they could ‘read’ a painting as well as they could read a novel."

>> The best musical education starts at home: early exposure to great classical music is almost essential to the ability to enjoy it fully as an adult<<

I am assuming from this that you actually agree with me, rather than with ybgirp.

>>Until a significant percentage of the population receives such an education<<

But in your world this is unachievable. If you are unable to appreciate classical music unless you were introduced to it by your parents, how will you be in a position to enthuse your own children?

Exposure is the key, not parents or teachers. And if businesses are smart, they will want to be associated with the sorts of programmes that simultaneously introduce people to the arts, and to their own contributions to society. It looks good in the annual report, and ensures good publicity for their business.

Theoretically, you could apply the same arguments to government largesse. Unfortunately, governments everywhere share the same characteristic - the ability to spend other people's money really really badly.

To adapt Sibley's Law only slightly, giving money to the government is like giving a gallon of beer to a drunk. You know what will become of it, but you can’t know which wall he will choose.

West “Lets either get rid of all subsidies or stop complaining.”

I agree

Individual consumers are the best judges of what they are buying; not disinterested, faceless bureaucrats or promise peddling politicians.

Wizofaus “It's just the practical outcome of your unprovable and subjective judgement that "Individuals are better at making choices with their own resources than government is".”

In a democracy, Individuals elect all levels of government.

Governments rely on the individuals “unprovable and subjective judgment” to be elected.

You are suggesting the folk who elect governments are incapable of deciding what they like in terms of “art”.

Which is utter rubbish!

If I thought government was in any way better at making choices for me than I am myself, I would be a Bolshevik.

I am no Bolshevik.

I have enjoyed considerable time studying visual arts.
At the age of 40 I discovered classical music, eventually evolving through Puccini, Wagner and Beethoven to appreciate Mozart.
My living room is graced by 3 large Canaletto prints, because I favour his style.

Re“if you had the choice to opt out of sacrificing a few cents of each paycheque towards Art funding, but were then not permitted to attend publicly-funded concerts,”

My partner paid for us to watch one of the performances of the MSO at the Queen Victoria market.

I buy my CD’s etc. commercially, without public subsidy.

I pay to visit the National Gallery of Victoria (both permanent and traveling collections).

I paid to view the “Bald-Archy” exhibition in 2007, when it happened to visit Bright the same day as I.

I guess I am paying for my “cultural indulgences”, as well as being forcibly charged through my rates and taxes.

I call that “double dipping” and as such it represents an abuse of governmental power.

Removing the individuals market choice from “art” is no different to removing the market choice from any other product or service.

All that results is some form of "cultural monopoly" and as we saw, with Hitler and Stalin, monopolies only deliver the worst supply for the highest price.

Col Rouge > “Please explain why you support the “fund it through the state” perspective (of Hitler and Stalin), Doc?”

'Fund it through the state' is normal practice throughout the world's nations today. Hitler/Stalin = irrelevant. Your position of funding everything privately is radical and diverges greatly from current practice. Therefore the onus is on you to explain the practicalities and possible outcomes of doing things 'your way'.

I brought up public spaces because they are a 'cultural indulgence' as much as free concerts and exhibitions. However it would be highly impractical and expensive to wall or cordon off parks, beaches and other public spaces and performance areas so that they could be purely user-pays affairs. The result would be much uglier than your Federation Square building. Speaking of which, regardless of what you think of it, it is without question an intrigue that attracts large numbers of visitors who boost the local economy.

You would be aware that the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra is mostly funded by taxpayers, regardless of the price one pays at the door. MSO Governance: http://www.mso.com.au/cpa/htm/htm_article.asp?page_id=15
Same goes for the National Gallery of Victoria. What you pay only takes the edge off the cost to taxpayers. It's not 'double-dipping' on the part of the government - galleries and orchestras are just expensive and require funding from a variety of sources.

Re role of police, that wasn't being pedantic - I genuinely thought that someone silly enough to suggest jailing all alcoholics and junkies might also be silly enough not to know what the role of our police is. Despite the fact that such a program would end up only targeting homeless alcoholics and junkies, as opposed to those with jobs, the expense of policing and imprisonment would be better spent on say, supporting the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra or free concerts to liven up Martin Place during what might otherwise be just another dreary workday.

Livingstone “Fund it through the state' is normal practice throughout the world's nations today…… Therefore the onus is on you to explain the practicalities and possible outcomes of doing things 'your way'.”

Not so in USA and not so in many parts of the world.

you are just using that as an excuse.

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

Obviously, in “Livingstone world” the state not only “chooses” for you but also “thinks” for you.

That reduces your view to “the philosophy of a vacuum”

As for “highly impractical and expensive to wall or cordon off parks, beaches and other public spaces and performance areas so that they could be purely user-pays affairs.”

That can be determined from a cost / benefit analysis.
Whilst the parks and beaches remain public, they are a rate and tax payer owned asset.
Should they be privatised, the taxpayer / rate payer paid for the transfer, doubtless the new owner is free to choose to secure such areas off from public access or not.

“Melbourne Symphony Orchestra is mostly funded by taxpayers”
and the user-pays New York Metropolitan Opera is not.

We can learn from the USA.

“role of police, that wasn't being pedantic”

yes it is

re “targeting homeless alcoholics and junkies”

Junkies or alcoholics reflect an indifference to their personal wellbeing. Locking them up means they are less likely to be burglarising honest tax payers to support their addiction..

You seem to think the state should make all the decisions and levy all the taxes upon us.
I suspect you work in the public sector, part of some monolithic bureaucracy, which regulates and prescribes your every action.

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”.

I am risking and “living” everyday of my life.

I would not change my life for your existence ever.

That is of course “My Choice” and not one determined by the “State”

Col, the New York Met is dependent on government funding, and recent cuts to it, and the consequent need to increase ticket prices, have significantly affected sales:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFDC143AF932A35751C0A964958260

If orchestras could operate profitably without government funding, then where are Australia's privately-funded orchestras? There's no law against them. Further, ticket prices are already as high as the market can bear - The Australian Opera recently tried increasing ticket prices by 6%, and sales dropped by exactly 6%.

If government funding for orchestras and opera companies in Australia was scrapped, we would have no professional orchestras or opera companies - no two ways about it. If we were lucky, eventually enough of the super-wealthy who cared might realise what a loss this was, and agree to fund a single orchestra, but that would be about it. For the sake of your ideological belief (and a few cents out of your paycheque), most Australians would have no opportunity to attend performances of classical music.

Thank goodness for democracy.