I agree with parts of this, but I do want to complicate it a bit... > the sheer arrogance of arts intellectuals saying "we're invaluable for society, so we sho

I agree with parts of this, but I do want to complicate it a bit... > the sheer arrogance of arts intellectuals saying "we're invaluable for society, so we should be paid by the government to do whatever we want to do" beggars belief. The arts aren't the only place where this happens. A lot of scientific/medical research is in part or whole funded by public money. Is your belief just as beggared by "the sheer arrogance of scientists saying: we're invaluable for society, so we should be paid by the government to study whatever we want"? > I'm way happier for the market to decide. There are viable business models out there for good quality content with niche appeal. It doesn't all have to be mass-market pap to be commercially sustainable. I see a connection between people trying to carve out a living in OSS and in the arts. Many artists and OSS developers are just people who work a day job that they may like, hate, or be indifferent to--and then go do something they are passionate about in their spare time. Do we, at scale, have a better society when most of these people's productive hours are fettered to whatever pays their bills (whether it uses their talents or squanders them) and they have to squirrel away energy for those passions--or are we better off when they can chase what makes them want to wake up on this side of the dirt every day?