Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:31:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2145 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> Richard Franks wrote:
> >
> > Either way, if the average quality of life is good then regardless of tax
> > rates I'd rather pay my share of tax. IMPP even up to 100% tax, if ever such
> > a scheme was workable, which it hasn't quite been yet!
>
> Interesting that Luxembourg's per capita GNP is higher than the United
> States's. I wouldn't be able to pay 100% tax, though--that's out and out
> Communism in the classical Marxian sense.
I disagree :) As just because Marx described a system that involved 100% tax,
it doesn't mean that 100% tax is Marxist.
Leaving aside questions of how, if a sustainable Utopia was created that had
100% tax, then why not?
In principle I'm pro-utopia, whether it turned out to involve 100% tax, or
whether it turned out to be Libertarianism.. or something which we haven't
concieved of yet.
> Go to Hillsdale College if you want right-wing indoctrination. If showing a
> certain amount of fairness when treating the vast majority of humanity, which
> is non-European, non-Christian, and non-male is left-wing, then I'm way off to
> the left.
Generally, I find these labels good grounds to find disagreement and barriers
to cooperation.. which is why I try and avoid them as much as I can!
> > What would be more disturbing was if the government only commissioned works
> > that were unoffensive and non-demanding.. bland and meaningless. That would
> > truely be a waste of money, and a sign of an atrophying culture.
>
> It would also be *very* much in the mould of the artistic sponsorship that
> Certain Totalitarian European/Eurasian Nations (I won't name them, you know
> which two I'm talking about) conducted in the 1930s. Albert Speer's
> architecture, "New Socialist Art," and the like were all government-funded,
> ideologically "safe" art.
Thoughts like that make me glad to see government sponsered art, that very
occasionally produces work which some people find questionable.
Could you argue that it is the government promoting true Freedom of Speech?
Richard
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if you live in the US than say the UK. (...) I find it easy to believe, however I would (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
