The New York City Opera — the one that just produced an opera about Anna Nicole Smith — may close its doors soon unless it comes up with seven million dollars. That’s the gist of a New York Times story that doubles as an appeal to philanthropic opera buffs.
From comments at the site we learn that some readers feel that the opera house has been mismanaged. Others issue instructions to various deep-pocketed luminaries, telling them that here’s their chance do something for the city and their own legacy. Others heatedly defend the “Anna Nicole” opera against detractors.
Then we have this remark, from someone who calls himself BullMoose: “Tell me again how private charity works better than government subsidies.” That’s it. No argument, just a hit-and-run exclamation of ideological discontent with private enterprises, which don’t invariably succeed. Government-subsidized enterprises don’t necessarily succeed either; but the dole can keep them in operation regardless of whether they are doing something worth doing and doing it well enough to please customers willing to pay.
Private charity works better than funds forcibly extracted from me and other taxpayers because private charity is voluntary. When our contributions are voluntary, it means we don’t have to support artistic or other projects that we have no interest in and may even oppose. We are free to use our own judgment, devoting our limited resources to the things we care about . . . instead of the things BullMoose cares about.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
6 replies on “A Shrill Note”
The government taking money from taxpayers and spending it on others who may or may not even pay taxes based on government’s priorities will never be more efficient,or accountable than voluntary support for those programs.
They administrators of government programs are spending other peoples money on themselves (pay/benefits) and others.
Voluntary givers are giving their own money for a cause they believe it. If the charity isn’t getting enough support, it either needs to downsize, change their mission to match what people really want, or fold. Why is it better if government forces everyone to support something only a relatively few people apparently want? Opera certainly is not a necessity that government should force on people. JMO
But if I had to pay for it myself, I couldn’t afford it. Why SHOULDN’T the great unwashed continue to support me in the manner to which I have become accustomed?
Opera, like public transportation, would never work if the people that all paid the costs actually all tried to avail themselves of it. Nor would it work very well if only the people that availed themselves of it footed the bill. That would be like a Broadway show, and if opera would sell, they would be doing that instead. Like public transportation, it is actually the MOST expensive way of accomplishing a goal, even though it makes for the lowest cost for those that actually use it. Might as well shut down the government if the government is not going to be paying for unnecessary costs.
And of course, I have to leave with a question. Isn’t “art” about slutty bimbos better than no “art” at all?
Turnage: Anna Nicole Opera, now available on Blu-ray!
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=612278&site_id=E1178
“When our contributions are voluntary, it means we don’t have to support artistic or other projects that we have no interest in and may even oppose. We are free to use our own judgment, devoting our limited resources to the things we care about . . . instead of the things BullMoose cares about.”
Not just art, but charity and the sciences are ventures which experience the greatest advancements when they are the pursuits of a free and prosperous people. The United States has shown that to the world.
It is the goal of the worthless, extractive aristocracy to declare an end to innovation and discovery, and to erase the obvious successes of the great experiment in individual liberties and rights.
…. When our contributions are voluntary, it means we don’t have to support artistic or other projects that we have no interest in and may even oppose ….
Even worse: When When our contributions are involuntary, we are frequently being forced to support artistic and/or political and/or other projects that we actively, vehemently, even, oppose.
NPR, say.
This IS Common Sense!
[…] began the week talking about opera. If I end the week discussing football, you can be sure that I’m closer to my home […]