3 ms·

> You don't mean "no one would pay", you mean "no one would pay enough" Fair enough, but that distinction only makes a real difference if the NEA commonly does

> You don't mean "no one would pay", you mean "no one would pay enough" Fair enough, but that distinction only makes a real difference if the NEA commonly does "last mile" funding (the last 5-20% to reach a threshold of viability, say). Is that the case? > No one would pay enough to build a nice mural or sculpture in a poor neighborhood, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. 1. The fact that someone has not yet paid, by some date, to build a nice mural or sculpture in some particular poor neighborhood, is not a proof that no one would pay to do so. 2. When I have participated in such projects, they were municipally funded in addition to neighborhood donations of time and materials, and I doubt any expenses were recouped from some NEA "hood aid" package. 3. If you think it's worth doing, do it. > The straightforward corrolary to what you wrote is that the artistic desires of the wealthy are inherently more valuable Artistic desire is a universal to which all humans are entitled. The power to commission other people of talent to create physical manifestations of my artistic desire is something I am only entitled to if I can afford to pay those people for their time and materials.

ajross 15y ago
> 1. The fact that someone has not yet paid, by some date, to build a nice mural or sculpture in some particular poor neighborhood, is not a proof that no one would pay to do so. Doesn't this invalidate your whole point then? How can it be a public disservice to fund this stuff if it's never possible to know if it's unwanted? Shrug. I know the libertarian line on this. I just think it falls down in the face of reality. It's nice to imagine that your government is lighting your precious tax dollars on fire with its wasteful nonsense, but the real world is always more complicated.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  How can it be a public disservice to fund this stuff if it's never possible to know if it's unwanted? The theory is that in the universe of all possible projects, the vast majority are a bad idea. E.g., most startups fail. So unless we have some compelling reason to believe a project is a good idea, it is likely to be wasteful. ...but the real world is always more complicated. This is a logical fallacy. You are claiming the world is more complicated, and then assuming the complexity hides facts or mechanisms which would support your preferred policy. But you don't even attempt to explain these mechanisms.
  - ajross 15y ago
    Your first statement asserts that the "vast majority" of NEA projects are bad ideas. Seems that reality doesn't bear that out, most of them seem reasonable to me. And the second is weird doublethink nonsense. Asserting that reality is complicated is just the truth. It's the libertarian position that is absolutist ("the vast majority of NEA projects are bad ideas", "no one wants to fund NEA projects"). My position is that for pretty much any project, there are people who want it and people who don't. And so you need to look carefully at the evidence and fund the stuff that's good. Where's the fallacy?
    - yummyfajitas 15y ago
      Your first statement asserts that the "vast majority" of NEA projects are bad ideas. Seems that reality doesn't bear that out, most of them seem reasonable to me. Actually no, my first statement takes the universe of all projects as a reference class. If you think the NEA picks good projects, go ahead and argue why that is the case. You haven't done that yet, you merely said "it's never possible to know if it's unwanted." I.e., you are assuming the facts we don't know will somehow support your position. Asserting that reality is complicated is just the truth. But there is absolutely no reason to believe complexity supports your position over any other position. If you want to delve into the complexity and make an argument for the NEA, do it. You haven't yet.
- feralchimp 15y ago
  > How can it be a public disservice to fund this stuff if it's never possible to know if it's unwanted? Because the funding comes from people who pay it under threat of force. Therefore, "not provably unwanted" shouldn't be the bar.

ajross 15y ago

> 1. The fact that someone has not yet paid, by some date, to build a nice mural or sculpture in some particular poor neighborhood, is not a proof that no one would pay to do so. Doesn't this invalidate your whole point then? How can it be a public disservice to fund this stuff if it's never possible to know if it's unwanted? Shrug. I know the libertarian line on this. I just think it falls down in the face of reality. It's nice to imagine that your government is lighting your precious tax dollars on fire with its wasteful nonsense, but the real world is always more complicated.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
How can it be a public disservice to fund this stuff if it's never possible to know if it's unwanted? The theory is that in the universe of all possible projects, the vast majority are a bad idea. E.g., most startups fail. So unless we have some compelling reason to believe a project is a good idea, it is likely to be wasteful. ...but the real world is always more complicated. This is a logical fallacy. You are claiming the world is more complicated, and then assuming the complexity hides facts or mechanisms which would support your preferred policy. But you don't even attempt to explain these mechanisms.
- ajross 15y ago
  Your first statement asserts that the "vast majority" of NEA projects are bad ideas. Seems that reality doesn't bear that out, most of them seem reasonable to me. And the second is weird doublethink nonsense. Asserting that reality is complicated is just the truth. It's the libertarian position that is absolutist ("the vast majority of NEA projects are bad ideas", "no one wants to fund NEA projects"). My position is that for pretty much any project, there are people who want it and people who don't. And so you need to look carefully at the evidence and fund the stuff that's good. Where's the fallacy?
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    Your first statement asserts that the "vast majority" of NEA projects are bad ideas. Seems that reality doesn't bear that out, most of them seem reasonable to me. Actually no, my first statement takes the universe of all projects as a reference class. If you think the NEA picks good projects, go ahead and argue why that is the case. You haven't done that yet, you merely said "it's never possible to know if it's unwanted." I.e., you are assuming the facts we don't know will somehow support your position. Asserting that reality is complicated is just the truth. But there is absolutely no reason to believe complexity supports your position over any other position. If you want to delve into the complexity and make an argument for the NEA, do it. You haven't yet.
feralchimp 15y ago
> How can it be a public disservice to fund this stuff if it's never possible to know if it's unwanted? Because the funding comes from people who pay it under threat of force. Therefore, "not provably unwanted" shouldn't be the bar.