4 ms·
> The more important question is Says you. We're talking about public money being spent. I certainly don't agree that maximizing the number of people who can s
by version_five 4y ago
> The more important question is
Says you. We're talking about public money being spent. I certainly don't agree that maximizing the number of people who can survive as artists is a good public policy goal. And I interpret "compromised" here to be producing something people want. That's vital, it's not a downside.
- staticman2 4y agoFortunately providing healthcare to the public has public policy benefits besides maximizing the number of people who can survive as artists. It causes the population to have higher life expectancy, for one thing. This is much easier to measure than who has the best artists.
- version_five 4y agoWhy are you posting that in reply to a thread about how healthcare encourages artists?
- staticman2 4y agoBecause you brought up public funding. This National Health Service is not a government program designed to promote the arts, so the issue of whether it "helps artists" is orthogonal to whether it is a good use of public funds.
- miguelazo 4y agoThat's just one of many, many examples, which I chose because the thread was already about artists. I also mentioned journalism, which you completely ignored.