Tories cut $1.1 billion over two years

[Charles Anthony]

I don't agree (and maybe this shoes jdobbin that I'm a liberal at heart).

No. It shows that you want other people to pay for your entertainment and you want to impose your way.

There are things that people in a democracy collectively want

Forgive me but saying "collectively want" means nothing.

How can you possibly determine what people collectively want?

We can agree that everybody wants food and water. However, are you going to say exactly what type of food everybody must eat??? without giving them choice?? and forcing them to pay for the same meal??

That is what you are doing with museums.

Governments are better at creating and maintaining these treasures for many reasons.

Who cares??

If governments were better at determining what healthy food we should be eating would you give them the power to tell us what food to eat?

What makes museums so special? I will tell you what makes museums so special: they allow hiding cronyism.

I have been "enriched" by publicly funded museums too -- that does not make their funding right.

I could be "enriched" by Robin Hood who steals from the rich and gives to the poor -- that does not make such enrichment right.

There are simply some things governments do better than private enterprises.

Yes: convincing people that governments have the right to steal.

In the age of digital art and the internet, we do not need a national portrait gallery open to the public. Only thieves benefit from a National Portrait Gallery.

Viewing art is a social experience, where people mix and meet. Staring at digital portraits in front of a computer screen is not as enriching.

A social experience?? What else do you want it to be?

Can blind people get a crony-gallery non-enrichment tax-deduction? or are they somehow indirectly enriched through some trickle-down effect by your own personal enrichment?

[jbg]

Are you saying those throngs of people waiting to enter the Museum of Natural History on a Saturday are there because I want someone to pay for my entertainment?

[Hydraboss]

No he isn't. I am saying that they are people that believe as you do; the majority must pay for the entertainment of the minority.

Socially enriching? Sure, why not?

Taking my friends and family out in my boat is also socially enriching and desperately needed. Where should I send the $150/weekend fuel bill? To you?

[jdobbin]

I don't agree (and maybe this shoes jdobbin that I'm a liberal at heart). There are things that people in a democracy collectively want whose capital cost of creation cannot be privately funded. Among the great treasures of the city near where I call home, New York, are the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Modern Museum. Ditto the Central Park Zoo and Bronx Zoo.

I can't think of a place that calls itself a country being able to define itself with private museums. No private benefactor be they individual, corporation or social group has the capacity to acquire, maintain and display the artifacts of an entire country.

I see it as part of the education system.

The right wing will never be happy with either. The most radical of them want everything privatized. They will rail against any form of public ownership. And that's fine. I just don't think their wishes will resonate with the public.

[Topaz]

Why do you think they are cutting like bad??? The war, that the Cons decided to extend to 2009, which will cost millions if not billions not counting what the military is spending on military equipment. You can't cut taxes and going on a sprending spree even if they have not paid for any of this until sometime in the future!! Canadians only need to look at the US and see how far Bush has gone into the red for "his" war!

[Hydraboss]

I can't think of a place that calls itself a country being able to define itself with private museums. No private benefactor be they individual, corporation or social group has the capacity to acquire, maintain and display the artifacts of an entire country.

I see it as part of the education system.

The right wing will never be happy with either. The most radical of them want everything privatized. They will rail against any form of public ownership. And that's fine. I just don't think their wishes will resonate with the public .

I think you would have to define who "the public" is. People within my sphere agree with me for the most part. Be it museums or any other type of entertainment, no one should be forced to pay for the enjoyment of another.

Example: The town I live in proposed a $20 million dollar long term loan to modify a recreational facility with the usual two ice rinks, three indoor soccer pitches, seniors running track, etc.. The plebicite takes place and guess what? 72% opposed.

One year later, the town proposes a $30 million dollar facility to be built "somewhere in the area". Plebicite happens, and guess what? 87% opposed.

Why? Everyone was very vocal that the facility was a great idea, that it would no doubt benefit all the kid's teams, the beer league adult teams and seniors. But the minute it was announced that the "average" tax bill would go up over $200 per year, the "vocal majority" was just that...vocal. 87% said "we're not paying for someone else's kid to play".

Had this same complex been funded and built by a private corporation, and just charged appropriate admission to use it, people would have probably flocked to vote "yes" to some municipal funding/tax breaks/etc...

There is a fine line that can be crossed between helping your fellow man with "essentials" and paying for his "wants". When the line is crossed and costs Average Joe a noticable amount of his hard-earned cash, the answer will undoubtably be a resounding "NO".

[jbg]

There is a fine line that can be crossed between helping your fellow man with "essentials" and paying for his "wants". When the line is crossed and costs Average Joe a noticable amount of his hard-earned cash, the answer will undoubtably be a resounding "NO".

I think one has to draw the line somewhere short of pure privatization. There is, and must be, some extent to which cultural exhibitions are publicly supported and paid for. Ripley's, and wax museums, cannot be the be-all and end-all.

Back in the day, churches and/or royalty funded art. Haydn was basically subsized by the Esterhazy family. Johan (sp) Sebastian Bach was paid for by religious entities. Nowadays, with modern nation-states, the replacement is the government.

[geoffrey]

What about national/provincial parks? Similar concept, no? Should natural areas only be funded by those that use them?

I'd suggest not, but then again, I'm seriously biased in the matter.

[jdobbin]

I think you would have to define who "the public" is. People within my sphere agree with me for the most part. Be it museums or any other type of entertainment, no one should be forced to pay for the enjoyment of another.

Example: The town I live in proposed a $20 million dollar long term loan to modify a recreational facility with the usual two ice rinks, three indoor soccer pitches, seniors running track, etc.. The plebicite takes place and guess what? 72% opposed.

One year later, the town proposes a $30 million dollar facility to be built "somewhere in the area". Plebicite happens, and guess what? 87% opposed.

It is probably for this very reason that they don't hold a referendum on building schools. In some communities in the U.S., the older population has said "why should I pay for someone else's education?" The reason is plain. Education is a public mandate.

Some communities have also opposed totally private facilities by a huge majority. It has been a not in my backyard thingy that is sweeping the country. It doesn't even come down to money anymore but whether it seems an inconvenience.

It's funny though how certain other things happen when a community is short sighted. People wonder: why are all the young people leaving? They often leave for communities that are more vibrant and imaginative.

Thankfully, the majority of people when polled have shown support for arts and recreation.

I kind of feel sorry for your town. I doubt any private concern would come up with the cash for the type of facility the city wants. If I had a young family, it would be a consideration if I was moving there or considering moving away.

[jdobbin]

What about national/provincial parks? Similar concept, no? Should natural areas only be funded by those that use them?

I'd suggest not, but then again, I'm seriously biased in the matter.

I think the far right non-statist types think they should be sold off. The government shouldn't protect areas of land.

If the state is the enemy, it is hard to see how they could justify a "national" park.

[geoffrey]

I think the far right non-statist types think they should be sold off. The government shouldn't protect areas of land.

If the state is the enemy, it is hard to see how they could justify a "national" park.

Indeed.

I'm just struggling with how I can be against publically funded museums (I am in some cases... the museum of human rights??? pleeease)... but strongly for expanding our parks program. It's a hypocracy I admit.

[jbg]

I think the far right non-statist types think they should be sold off. The government shouldn't protect areas of land.

If the state is the enemy, it is hard to see how they could justify a "national" park.

Indeed.

I'm just struggling with how I can be against publically funded museums (I am in some cases... the museum of human rights??? pleeease)... but strongly for expanding our parks program. It's a hypocracy I admit.

My position and problem as well. I admit there's no way to be principled. Common sense, I guess, is still a requirement.

[jdobbin]

Indeed.

I'm just struggling with how I can be against publically funded museums (I am in some cases... the museum of human rights??? pleeease)... but strongly for expanding our parks program. It's a hypocracy I admit.

I think it is an admission that a park isn't something the private sector thinks about. And why should they? Land is something to exploit.

I am having a hard time seeing how the Human Rights museum would ever have gotten approved if it had been started by the Feds. While it is commendable that the Aspers, Richardsons, Blanksteins, Grays and the big banks have ponied up millions for the construction, it is an immense project that will require continual money. The operating grants alone are considerable.

Still, I think museums fulfill an education and cultural role that can't be fully defined by the private sector.