What Libertarians Do

[maiforpeace]

Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my
neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog.
During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted
to be when she grows up.
She said she wanted to be President some day.
Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her,
"If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"
She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
Her parents beamed with pride!
"Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said. "But you don't have to wait until
you're President to do that!" I told her.
"What do you mean?" she replied.
So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn,
pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go
over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you
can give him $1 so he can eat today."
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in
the eye and asked, "Fuck off it's my dollar"
I said, "Welcome to Libertarianism"
Her parents aren't speaking to me.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not convinced people who are hire gardeners are 'middle class', they are definitely people with a lot of money spare

It's very common in the U.S.

I used to mow lawns for spending money back in the late '60s. Nothing unusual about it.

[maiforpeace]

Mowing lawns is a national pastime in some parts of the US...here in California we don't have enough rain or water for it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Mowing lawns is a national pastime in some parts of the US...here in California we don't have enough rain or water for it.

In Albuquerque they vacuum them regularly.

[Audley Strange]

There is an element of elitism I agree with you, but I deliberately avoided that word in my comment because it is elitism with a difference. I am not a cultural relativist. Macbeth is better than East Enders. Mozart is better than Boyzone as far as I am concerned.

So maybe it is about education rather than entertainment for the elite. It is that too no doubt, but I will never forget taking my daughter to see Midsummer Night's Dream in Stratford on Avon when we lived near there, when she was about 8. Her face lit up and she enjoyed Shakespeare from that day on. And we aren't part of any elite unless you call a middle class guy with a decent education that.

You don't see how saying, in essence "yes we must educate the proles to appreciate our tastes" is the offensive and patronising manner of the Elite? See the difference is, "as far as you are concerned".

Look don't get me wrong, I hate about 95% of all entertainment. However it seems to me that to suggest "my tastes are objectively better than yours" is Elitism, it's snobbery and it does work both ways. I think I could argue a case where episodes or story-lines of East-Enders are on par if not better with Shakespeare's but without the fantasy elements. Take MacBeth for example. In it some tit gets duped by three bitches and his monster of a wife into killing his friends for power which is his downfall. Compare that say to the Den and Angie storyline whereupon a woman is so terrified of losing her husband that she concocts a lie that she is dying to keep him, but when this lie is revealed to him he uses it as a weapon to destroy her.

No supernatural witches, no tedious gatekeepers, all in the common language of modern day Britain.

They are dramas, acted out. Sure you could point to a production of MacBeth and say the sets are better, it was more atmospheric or the acting pulled you into the drama, but that's production, not the work itself. Eastenders is on 36 times a week, obviously it's going to slip sometimes.

I'm not sure you can compare Mozart to Boyzone. One is a composer of music the other is a group dedicated to mostly singing cover versions. You could certainly compare Mozart to someone like Gary Barlow.

The only difference between High and Lowbrow is the amount of time people invest in analysing it. I could quite easily take something considered lowbrow, hmmm... I know the Wrestling, WWE. Now, I would consider WWE amongst the highest of art forms. Assuming you have not dismissed that, let me make my case.

It is a multi-media fusion of superhero stories, softcore pornography, classical greco-roman homoerotic wrestling and neo-brutalist contemporary dance. While it is obviously seen as populist trash by the majority of those who do not watch it, they are dismissing it unfairly because those dance-dramas might often promote a hawkish right-wing agenda, but they deal with the major issues. Drug abuse, spousal abuse, infidelity, financial and moral corruption, fear of the other, mortality, trust, betrayal. They are comedic, violent, tragic, absurd and often transgressive, challenging and offensive.

It has an artistic tradition and heritage older than Shakespeare yet it is dismissed as trash even though it plays to packed venues and is as I point out above, a fusion of many things considered populist and high art.

The only reason we subsidise art is because it is failing to be profitable on it's own merits. Should we abandon classic art music and drama education in school and have one class "the history of the arts" by all means, but I'm NOT a fan of government subsidies for private businesses, no matter who might think it worthy.

[MrJonno]

You don't see how saying, in essence "yes we must educate the proles to appreciate our tastes" is the offensive and patronising manner of the Elite? See the difference is, "as far as you are concerned".

I think thats a good summary and its a very good thing. Its government not only being representative but also leading.
Large parts of the BBC which are in effect tax payers subsidised is elitist but adds to the country as a whole

[Audley Strange]

You don't see how saying, in essence "yes we must educate the proles to appreciate our tastes" is the offensive and patronising manner of the Elite? See the difference is, "as far as you are concerned".

I think thats a good summary and its a very good thing. Its government not only being representative but also leading.
Large parts of the BBC which are in effect tax payers subsidised is elitist but adds to the country as a whole

No, the BBC is far far from Elitist. Establishment certainly, but not elitist, it would never have survived. Still there is, as with the NHS still a majority consensus that the BBC is beneficial. I do not think that applies to "the arts."

Surely the right thing would be to subsidise the populist stuff so the snob minority can get their heads out of the clouds of their own self regarding superiority and appreciate the tastes of the proles. They are the ones who need the help.

[MrJonno]

Something like The Islamic History of Science, of the Story of Maths is never going to be mainstream or anything other than elitist like most of the BBC4.

[Audley Strange]

Something like The Islamic History of Science, of the Story of Maths is never going to be mainstream or anything other than elitist like most of the BBC4.

True and something like "Stupids fall in water hilarity show" or "Celebrity's Dance" is never going to be anything other than a plebdazzle populist nonsense and that is discounting the entirety of BBC3, most of BBC1 and half of BBC2. Your example isn't a good one I'm afraid.

[Rum]

What's wrong with elitism?

[Bella Fortuna]

Not convinced people who are hire gardeners are 'middle class', they are definitely people with a lot of money spare

This is absolutely untrue.

As others have said, gardeners (well, they garden less than they mow lawns, blow leaves, and trim the odd branch) are the norm in many middle-class suburban areas.

I have a gardener for my front yard, even if only because it's part of my homeowner's association dues and the company that does it does the whole tract. When I was growing up we always had one, a nice old Japanese man who mowed our grass once a week for about 15 years, and we were far from well-off.

[Audley Strange]

What's wrong with elitism?

Absolutely nothing as long as public funds are not unevenly distributed to benefit minority interests at the expense of the majority interests. It would seem to me that an Elite regards its tastes better and more worthy than others and the majority should be enlightened by it should put their money where their mouths are and fund such themselves. If they are correct, they'll make enough to sustain it, if not, then perhaps they should admit "the arts" are not as important or as valuable as they claim.

[Rum]

What's wrong with elitism?

Absolutely nothing as long as public funds are not unevenly distributed to benefit minority interests at the expense of the majority interests. It would seem to me that an Elite regards its tastes better and more worthy than others and the majority should be enlightened by it should put their money where their mouths are and fund such themselves. If they are correct, they'll make enough to sustain it, if not, then perhaps they should admit "the arts" are not as important or as valuable as they claim.

No sorry but this won't wash. Populism and quality are simply not the same.

[Audley Strange]

What's wrong with elitism?

Absolutely nothing as long as public funds are not unevenly distributed to benefit minority interests at the expense of the majority interests. It would seem to me that an Elite regards its tastes better and more worthy than others and the majority should be enlightened by it should put their money where their mouths are and fund such themselves. If they are correct, they'll make enough to sustain it, if not, then perhaps they should admit "the arts" are not as important or as valuable as they claim.

No sorry but this won't wash. Populism and quality are simply not the same.

Granted, but thats not the point, aside from quality being entirely subjective and pretty much meaningless. Do you think we should subsidise fancy restaurants because the food quality and ambiance is better than supermarket swill? Minority interests are minority not because as the Elitists might think the great unwashed are ignorant of just how wonderful they are as compared to football or soaps, but because they are more often than not, archaic. The arts is the only thing I can think of where we always seem to think talent is something of the past and that what we have now is somehow substandard.

The sheer fucking arrogance to expect everyone to subsidise your specific tastes under the patronising guise of "oh but they'll die out otherwise and if we open it up to the poor they'll enjoy it."

Nope sorry Rum that doesn't wash, especially after forty fucking years of trying to make an increasingly uninterested public "aware" of the arts. They are aware, they're just not that interested. If 12 menopausal women in Hammersmith want to watch a Nigerian woman sing through her nose about her miscarriage, good for them but why the fuck should anyone else subsidise that?

The government has more important things to spend money on than to make sure Tickets at the R.O.H. are a fiver cheaper.

[amused]

I sat as an observer (no voting rights) on the art selection committee for an 'art in public spaces' award for a large project I was managing. One of the people on the committee was supposedly an artist. He insisted that the only good art was art that nobody could understand. We got crap.