Is it wrong for great art works to be hoarded by the rich?

[Seth]

To the above post, basically meh...

A majority of Australians are happy with laws that presrve heritage buildings. From what I gather, at least in some areas, so are a majority of Americans.

The majority is always happy with the laws it uses to oppress the minority, so that's merely a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

You can pontificate about the "flaws in its fundamental premise", and fume impotently about it all you like...

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we'll enjoy our historical streetscapes...

And that's another characteristic of the fascistic majority tyranny, those in power or whose interests are served by the tyrannical acts simply dismiss the complaints of those who are oppressed by their actions.

Poor Seth, a member of a poor, downtrodden minority, a misunderstood political genius sadly oppressed by so much of the mainstream world, whose inhabitants are either evil commies, tyrannical fascists or sheeple...

It's hard to decide whether your world view or sandinista's marxist never-never land is the most delusional...

Personal attack. Reported. I demand sanctions.

[Seth]

The majority is always happy with the laws it uses to oppress the minority, so that's merely a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

There are only two governments those where the majority 'oppress' the minority and those where the minority 'oppress' the majority. Its generaly pretty clear which is the most common ie dictatorship ruling over the majority. If the only way to make people like Seth never oppress the majority ie me is to make sure that they feel 'oppressed' then so bet it. I would gladly pay 90% tax to make sure people like Seth never have any real power in this world

Personal attack. Reported. I demand sanctions.

[DRSB]

Many artworks were bought for almost nothing by collectors before the painters became known as great, example: Russian avant-garde. I know people that bought Chagal-stuff for the price of a pair of shoes before Chagal became the name he eventually became. The whole period 1910-20s was virtually unknown in Russia itself, stored in cellars and unappreciated, until the late 80s, while at the same time being a hit in the West. Point being: what counts is whether you buy out of appreciation or out of snobism.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES wrote:

That's what it means - the majority can't tell a minority of ONE that he can't hold an opinion, and no consensus, no majority, anywhere, anyplace, anytime, can take that away. If you disagree with that , you can pick a number, get in line and kiss his, and my, ass.

Very few would disagree with the right of an indivividual to hold (and state) opinions, be they unpopular or not.

I think you're wrong about that. There are constant attacks on the right of an individual to hold and state opinions when those are unpopular. It used to be very common for people to think communists should not have that right. And, it's now very common for folks to claim holocaust deniers and racists should not have that right. The majority will always chip away at that right, when given the chance.

However, the crux of the debate here about majority rule is decisions which affect how a community runs, arrived at by whatever political process.

Well sure - "tyranny of the majority" isn't a concept that demands elimination of the democratic process.

[charlou]

Is it 'wrong' ... ?

objectively .. the universe doesn't give a ratz arse.

Me? I like the idea that art would be available to all in one form or another (digital, print, galleries, etc) ... and I'm opposed to the destruction of art .. me, who destroyed my own work way back, when in a self destructive frame of mind.

[Ronja]

Seth, your reports above have been noted and are being discussed by the staff in the staff area. You are welcome to give your own points of view, if you wish, in the "Interpreting our personal attack guideline" thread in "In depth", seeing as you have made your complaint public: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 40#p917128

IMO, public complaints can be valuable for developing a (more) common understanding of our rules and what is challenging in interpreting them. Everyone's participation in the discussion is therefore much appreciated. However, there should be no pressure on those members who wish to report privately. The choice in how to report is individual and free, and using the report tool is enough to get the staff's attention.

Please don't derail this thread by answering this post here - use the thread linked to in the first paragraph, instead.

[Gallstones]

So this thread isn't about art anymore then?

[charlou]

So this thread isn't about art anymore then?

you're easily distracted ... ?

Is it 'wrong' ... ?

objectively .. the universe doesn't give a ratz arse.

Me? I like the idea that art would be available to all in one form or another (digital, print, galleries, etc) ... and I'm opposed to the destruction of art .. me, who destroyed my own work way back, when in a self destructive frame of mind.

[Gallstones]

So this thread isn't about art anymore then?

you're easily distracted ... ?

Yes. Very.

[Pensioner]

The majority is always happy with the laws it uses to oppress the minority, so that's merely a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

There are only two governments those where the majority 'oppress' the minority and those where the minority 'oppress' the majority. Its generaly pretty clear which is the most common ie dictatorship ruling over the majority. If the only way to make people like Seth never oppress the majority ie me is to make sure that they feel 'oppressed' then so bet it. I would gladly pay 90% tax to make sure people like Seth never have any real power in this world

Personal attack. Reported. I demand sanctions.

Personal attack my arse, if I called you a winging bastard that would be personal attack.

[devogue]

The majority is always happy with the laws it uses to oppress the minority, so that's merely a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

There are only two governments those where the majority 'oppress' the minority and those where the minority 'oppress' the majority. Its generaly pretty clear which is the most common ie dictatorship ruling over the majority. If the only way to make people like Seth never oppress the majority ie me is to make sure that they feel 'oppressed' then so bet it. I would gladly pay 90% tax to make sure people like Seth never have any real power in this world

Personal attack. Reported. I demand sanctions.

Personal attack my arse, if I called you a winging bastard that would be personal attack.

No, that would be atrocious spelling.

[Pensioner]

The majority is always happy with the laws it uses to oppress the minority, so that's merely a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

There are only two governments those where the majority 'oppress' the minority and those where the minority 'oppress' the majority. Its generaly pretty clear which is the most common ie dictatorship ruling over the majority. If the only way to make people like Seth never oppress the majority ie me is to make sure that they feel 'oppressed' then so bet it. I would gladly pay 90% tax to make sure people like Seth never have any real power in this world

Personal attack. Reported. I demand sanctions.

Personal attack my arse, if I called you a winging bastard that would be personal attack.

No, that would be atrocious spelling.

I know but do I give a shit

[JimC]

CES wrote:

That's what it means - the majority can't tell a minority of ONE that he can't hold an opinion, and no consensus, no majority, anywhere, anyplace, anytime, can take that away. If you disagree with that , you can pick a number, get in line and kiss his, and my, ass.

Very few would disagree with the right of an indivividual to hold (and state) opinions, be they unpopular or not.

I think you're wrong about that. There are constant attacks on the right of an individual to hold and state opinions when those are unpopular. It used to be very common for people to think communists should not have that right. And, it's now very common for folks to claim holocaust deniers and racists should not have that right. The majority will always chip away at that right, when given the chance.

To clarify, I really meant very few on this forum. There are certainly people IRL who tend to attack the rights to free speech, and they should be opposed, with the usual caveat about incitement to violence.

[JimC]

The majority is always happy with the laws it uses to oppress the minority, so that's merely a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

There are only two governments those where the majority 'oppress' the minority and those where the minority 'oppress' the majority. Its generaly pretty clear which is the most common ie dictatorship ruling over the majority. If the only way to make people like Seth never oppress the majority ie me is to make sure that they feel 'oppressed' then so bet it. I would gladly pay 90% tax to make sure people like Seth never have any real power in this world

Personal attack. Reported. I demand sanctions.

Demand them, from those (in another thread), you have termed fascists?

Interesting...

[MrJonno]

No I've been naughty I should have said I would gladly pay 90% taxes to make sure that people with an ideology like Seth's never got anywhere near power, rather than personally target Seth even through he's probably the only person on the planet that has an ideology like Seth there indeed could be others out there