Dear Yuyutsu,

I think I may have accused you in the past of having a rather American sensibility or outlook. Nothing wrong with that, each to their own. Perhaps it stands out because Australia has gone about things differently.

But I look at the success achieved in Newcastle and know if we had ever attempted to do this through philanthropy it plainly wouldn't have happened.

To throw some tangibles on the table besides the Lonely Planet endorsement.

In a declining tourism market hit hard by the world recession, aviation fuel prices, and the high Australian dollar Newcastle and the Hunter have stood out.

International visitors to regional NSW have dropped over the last four years but not in Newcastle and the Hunter.

From the latest figures I have Sept 2011 YTD international visitors have climbed over the last four years from 107,000 to 127,000. And the international visitor nights from 1,416,000 to a whopping 2,240,000.

More people coming and in turn staying longer. This pumps 100s of millions of dollars into the region, one that many thought would suffer the decrepitude of many towns that lose their main industry.

You may be dismissive of the tools used but the results are plain to see.

I see it as a good news story that all Australian's should rightly be proud of and and excellent use of taxes that will pay for itself quite smartly with less people requiring government assistance and more paying personal and business taxes.

Further I have little problem with you being forced to contribute. If that makes me a thief in your eyes so be it. 

Dear Csteele,

Any connection with America is completely incidental. I have no sympathy for that place and never intend to set my foot there.

There may be a localized economic success here and there, but what is the ratio of successes vs. failures? Also, how much of the funds tagged for the arts end up in the pockets of government employees/contractors and other middlemen?

Talking about tangibles, do the balance sheets take into account the fact that when my money is taken away without my consent towards goals that I don't approve of (or perhaps even disdain - I may believe for example that a certain form of art is immoral, like the fashion industry that you mentioned earlier), then I draw the conclusions and the net result is less taxes, not more? I learned the ropes and discovered that in Australia, given the combination of explicit+hidden tax-margins, the less you earn the better off you are!

If taxes were fairer, supported the needy more directly and not directed at controversial projects, then I would have been more likely to work harder, export more, earn more, and pay more tax, but that's alright, I understand the system and I adapt - now I'm no longer keen on working, I do the minimum just to get by, I have more spare time and overall I am happier. That's my personal case - others who don't share my principles may simply be more inclined to fail to report their income.

But tangibles are not the issue. The issue is that the state is not a voluntary body, that one gets no choice whether or not to be subject to its rules, that it hogs a whole continent with no way to escape (except for those who are able to flee to even worse regimes). In other words, the state is a predator and predators should be kept on a leash. The state has some essential roles which may justify its coerciveness, such as defending its citizens against violence, fraud and hunger; but culture and economics are way outside its legitimate mandate.

Dear Wobbles,

"There's not much difference between funding the Arts and funding professional sports.

Both have specific audiences, neither pay back the costs incurred by the public and both are exercises in self-indulgence."

- So far, excellent observations!

"Maybe the question should be "what value does society place on both and what sort of society would it be if either one ceased to exist"."

Society cannot place a value on anything since it is not a sentient living being. Individuals place values on things, but then different individuals are likely to place different values on both the above activities.

If either ceased to exist, then the question is "why did it?".
Assuming that nobody shot the artists and sportsmen, threatened them to cease or threw them in jail, then the remaining options are that either nobody was interested in becoming a professional artist/sportsperson, or that nobody was interested in funding their self-indulgent habit.

"Maybe there is a social need for both and that need outweighs money."

I will not argue whether that need outweighs money, but does it outweigh moral values, such as non-theft and non-violence (because that's what the government does when it taxes people)? Csteele for example seems to believe that it does.

Maybe the question should be "what value does society place on individual freedoms and what sort of society would it be if those ceased to exist".