4 ms·

> Class differentiation is the central meaning of life. This is patently not true. We overthrew kings, introduced democracy, and eliminated slavery. Every time

> Class differentiation is the central meaning of life. This is patently not true. We overthrew kings, introduced democracy, and eliminated slavery. Every time we have made people more equal, our society has become more open and less morally repugnant. Trying to be the winner of class competition is vulgar Marxism. You don't need so many things to be happy in life, nor do you need to dominate others. You merely need your life essentials, freedom of movement, friends, family, and meaningful work. None of those things require domination. Obviously everyone will lead a different life, but you don't need to suck up resources like a black hole to do so.

perl4ever 8y ago
I don't care about class competition, nor do I need a "lot" (by the standards of the wealthy) of things to be happy in life. But I like things (art, collectibles) that wouldn't exist except for social competition of the rich, regardless of whether I will ever own them. I like that they exist. When people won't shut up about how terrible possessions and competition are, it tells me they are so torn up and conflicted about their own desires for money, possessions, and power, that they can't appreciate beautiful things.[1] [1]https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1941-packard-120-convertible/ https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1941-packard-120-convertib...
- jadedhacker 8y ago
  I mean, it's undeniable that the rich create luxury goods that are often aesthetically pleasing, but they are items that are enjoyed almost exclusively by the rich. At most, the average person might observe one of these on the street. Publicly funded art would create accessible beautiful things, not merely inaccessible toys you can dream about but never have. EDIT: I kind of feel like this argument is like, well if we didn't have the Sun King we wouldn't have Versailles.
  - mozumder 8y ago
    The art created by the rich isn't exclusively for the rich. They create art galleries and museums, as well as parks and festivals and sports and science centers and Keck telescopes and universities and other great things. You could say the public could do those, but now you have to deal with creation by a public committee, which may water down more cutting edge ideas due to the effects of populism. A billionaire can just make it happen, regardless of what the public thinks. They aren't responsible to the public in their art. Can you imagine trying to gather public funds for a new university in the age of Trump & Sanders. LOL it's not happening.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      Why is it impossible? We do that all the time in countries that are not USA. Sometimes it is even successful. This all depends on how budget is allocated. The main drawback is currently that people do not vote directly on budget allocation and representatives have vested interests more often than not. (Except perhaps in Switzerland.) We could change it, but transitioning such a system would be hard and there's always excuses of "strategy" involved. As to art itself.. Governments also sponsor some forms of art. (Sometimes this gets corrupted or politicised.) Heck, there are private foundations too which do not have a single or small number of rich patrons.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    Future Versailles isn't a justification of having the Sun King in the first place, but retrospectively it's different - judging monarchy as bad now isn't a reason to tear it down now. Nor is the fact you or I can't own it. I've been to Versailles, and while it wouldn't harm me any more to destroy it than destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan, it does seem to me somewhat better that it continue to exist. I'm not sure what you mean by "accessible" art. Most things that are restricted to a select few become more accessible over time. Versailles is a good example of this, since you can take tours now. I'm not sure if it is an example of what you mean by "publicly funded", either.

perl4ever 8y ago

I don't care about class competition, nor do I need a "lot" (by the standards of the wealthy) of things to be happy in life. But I like things (art, collectibles) that wouldn't exist except for social competition of the rich, regardless of whether I will ever own them. I like that they exist. When people won't shut up about how terrible possessions and competition are, it tells me they are so torn up and conflicted about their own desires for money, possessions, and power, that they can't appreciate beautiful things.[1] [1]https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1941-packard-120-convertible/ https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1941-packard-120-convertib...

jadedhacker 8y ago
I mean, it's undeniable that the rich create luxury goods that are often aesthetically pleasing, but they are items that are enjoyed almost exclusively by the rich. At most, the average person might observe one of these on the street. Publicly funded art would create accessible beautiful things, not merely inaccessible toys you can dream about but never have. EDIT: I kind of feel like this argument is like, well if we didn't have the Sun King we wouldn't have Versailles.
- mozumder 8y ago
  The art created by the rich isn't exclusively for the rich. They create art galleries and museums, as well as parks and festivals and sports and science centers and Keck telescopes and universities and other great things. You could say the public could do those, but now you have to deal with creation by a public committee, which may water down more cutting edge ideas due to the effects of populism. A billionaire can just make it happen, regardless of what the public thinks. They aren't responsible to the public in their art. Can you imagine trying to gather public funds for a new university in the age of Trump & Sanders. LOL it's not happening.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Why is it impossible? We do that all the time in countries that are not USA. Sometimes it is even successful. This all depends on how budget is allocated. The main drawback is currently that people do not vote directly on budget allocation and representatives have vested interests more often than not. (Except perhaps in Switzerland.) We could change it, but transitioning such a system would be hard and there's always excuses of "strategy" involved. As to art itself.. Governments also sponsor some forms of art. (Sometimes this gets corrupted or politicised.) Heck, there are private foundations too which do not have a single or small number of rich patrons.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  Future Versailles isn't a justification of having the Sun King in the first place, but retrospectively it's different - judging monarchy as bad now isn't a reason to tear it down now. Nor is the fact you or I can't own it. I've been to Versailles, and while it wouldn't harm me any more to destroy it than destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan, it does seem to me somewhat better that it continue to exist. I'm not sure what you mean by "accessible" art. Most things that are restricted to a select few become more accessible over time. Versailles is a good example of this, since you can take tours now. I'm not sure if it is an example of what you mean by "publicly funded", either.