8 ms·

I'm not sure why you think it should be a priority for the nation (meaning the taxpayers) to support those who devote their lives to the study of literature. D

I'm not sure why you think it should be a priority for the nation (meaning the taxpayers) to support those who devote their lives to the study of literature. Do those pursuits pay off in some tangible or intangible form down the line that justifies the upfront, and very tangible, expenditure you want taken out of my paycheck? I'll agree that military spending is out of control, and that the welfare system in general needs to do better than cut people off past a certain point, but that doesn't mean we should pay for apartments for English majors with the money we're currently spending on bombs.

dukeluke 10y ago
It really depends on what we want to prioritize in our culture and country. If we want to prioritize profits and perpetual exponential growth, then it should be obvious that literature should not be prioritized. But if quality of life should be the focus of our country, then it should at least be considered.
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  You can prioritize whatever you want. What you can't do is impose your priorities on everyone else. Remember that country/culture is not a moral agent which has goals/priorities separate from individuals.
  - dukeluke 10y ago
    Of course. A culture is made of a bunch of individuals with a common method of communication. I disagree, though, that I can't impose my priorities on others. What makes you say I can't?
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Culture is completely a Moral Agent of Society, and to argue otherwise is ridiculous. Nearly all Art is in close proximity to or a direct result of an internal belief system font of inspiration. How that comes to be expressed by default entails a Message, thus enter twining Morality and Art in ways that can not be separated from Individuals as members of Society. That's why arguments about separating Great Art from Shithead Artists is a constant conversation of "Is it okay..." among adults who care about such things.
wishinghand 10y ago
> the welfare system in general needs to do better than cut people off past a certain point Is the welfare system the opposite right now with that problematic gap? Make too little and you're on welfare. Get a job, make too much for welfare, and welfare cuts off, leaving this precarious middle area that many can't make, losing their job again, and then falling back into welfare?
- crystalmeph 10y ago
  We're venturing a little off-topic here, but I'll walk with you a bit: I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here. My understanding of the current welfare system is that you get $Y from welfare as long as you make less than $X dollars from a "real" job, but as soon as you make $X dollars at your job, you lose the entire $Y from welfare. That's a bad system. A better system would keep paying welfare once you make more than $X at your job, it would just start reducing the amount of welfare you receive, e.g. for every $1 you make above $X, your welfare payment reduces by $0.50. This ensures that as you make more money at your real job, you aren't actually suddenly reducing your take home pay. Basically a negative income tax for those making less than some threshold.
  - lelandbatey 10y ago
    It's interesting that you mention that particular welfare structure, since that's actually already used in a huge way in the United States, in the form of the "Earned Income Tax Credit"[0], which while I don't hear it talked about publicly very often, is a huge program that sounds like it does a lot of good. To quote Wikipedia: At a cost of $56 billion in 2013, the EITC is the third-largest social welfare program in the United States after Medicaid ($275 billion federal and $127 billion state expenditures) and food stamps ($78 billion). And this is an example, also taken from Wikipedia, of the way the EITC might work in the real world: For example, a married couple with two qualifying children and yearly income of seven thousand dollars will receive EITC of $2,810 (going up the hill). At fifteen thousand dollars, this couple will receive EITC of $5,036 (plateau). And at twenty-five and thirty-five thousand dollars, this same couple with their two children will receive EITC of $4,285 and $2,179, respectively. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit#Households.27_average_taxes_and_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit#House...
iak8god 10y ago
> but that doesn't mean we should pay for apartments for English majors with the money we're currently spending on bombs. If we took half the money we now spend on bombs and spent it on apartments for English majors instead would the result be a better or worse society than we have now?
- crystalmeph 10y ago
  I am questioning the premise that making the taxpayers pay for English majors' apartments is worth the money you take from the taxpayers. Just because the money isn't being spent on bad idea "A" doesn't mean bad idea "B" should get funded.
  - iak8god 10y ago
    I know. We probably just disagree about the ordering of these possibilities: * Keep spending $B/2 on bombs * Give $B/2 back to the taxpayers instead * Use the $B/2 to support cultural activities that are not profitable enough to support themselves

dukeluke 10y ago

It really depends on what we want to prioritize in our culture and country. If we want to prioritize profits and perpetual exponential growth, then it should be obvious that literature should not be prioritized. But if quality of life should be the focus of our country, then it should at least be considered.

maverick_iceman 10y ago
You can prioritize whatever you want. What you can't do is impose your priorities on everyone else. Remember that country/culture is not a moral agent which has goals/priorities separate from individuals.
- dukeluke 10y ago
  Of course. A culture is made of a bunch of individuals with a common method of communication. I disagree, though, that I can't impose my priorities on others. What makes you say I can't?
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Culture is completely a Moral Agent of Society, and to argue otherwise is ridiculous. Nearly all Art is in close proximity to or a direct result of an internal belief system font of inspiration. How that comes to be expressed by default entails a Message, thus enter twining Morality and Art in ways that can not be separated from Individuals as members of Society. That's why arguments about separating Great Art from Shithead Artists is a constant conversation of "Is it okay..." among adults who care about such things.

wishinghand 10y ago

> the welfare system in general needs to do better than cut people off past a certain point Is the welfare system the opposite right now with that problematic gap? Make too little and you're on welfare. Get a job, make too much for welfare, and welfare cuts off, leaving this precarious middle area that many can't make, losing their job again, and then falling back into welfare?

crystalmeph 10y ago
We're venturing a little off-topic here, but I'll walk with you a bit: I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here. My understanding of the current welfare system is that you get $Y from welfare as long as you make less than $X dollars from a "real" job, but as soon as you make $X dollars at your job, you lose the entire $Y from welfare. That's a bad system. A better system would keep paying welfare once you make more than $X at your job, it would just start reducing the amount of welfare you receive, e.g. for every $1 you make above $X, your welfare payment reduces by $0.50. This ensures that as you make more money at your real job, you aren't actually suddenly reducing your take home pay. Basically a negative income tax for those making less than some threshold.
- lelandbatey 10y ago
  It's interesting that you mention that particular welfare structure, since that's actually already used in a huge way in the United States, in the form of the "Earned Income Tax Credit"[0], which while I don't hear it talked about publicly very often, is a huge program that sounds like it does a lot of good. To quote Wikipedia: At a cost of $56 billion in 2013, the EITC is the third-largest social welfare program in the United States after Medicaid ($275 billion federal and $127 billion state expenditures) and food stamps ($78 billion). And this is an example, also taken from Wikipedia, of the way the EITC might work in the real world: For example, a married couple with two qualifying children and yearly income of seven thousand dollars will receive EITC of $2,810 (going up the hill). At fifteen thousand dollars, this couple will receive EITC of $5,036 (plateau). And at twenty-five and thirty-five thousand dollars, this same couple with their two children will receive EITC of $4,285 and $2,179, respectively. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit#Households.27_average_taxes_and_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit#House...

iak8god 10y ago

> but that doesn't mean we should pay for apartments for English majors with the money we're currently spending on bombs. If we took half the money we now spend on bombs and spent it on apartments for English majors instead would the result be a better or worse society than we have now?

crystalmeph 10y ago
I am questioning the premise that making the taxpayers pay for English majors' apartments is worth the money you take from the taxpayers. Just because the money isn't being spent on bad idea "A" doesn't mean bad idea "B" should get funded.
- iak8god 10y ago
  I know. We probably just disagree about the ordering of these possibilities: * Keep spending $B/2 on bombs * Give $B/2 back to the taxpayers instead * Use the $B/2 to support cultural activities that are not profitable enough to support themselves