“If you want to ruin any industry, it suffices that you subsidize it” – Myself.
If you want to ruin art, subsidize art, if you want to ruin education, charge the government of providing it and if you want to ruin national defense, also, make government the exclusive owner of arms, if you want the poor to remain poor, give them easy money, if you want to ruin justice, charge one government of establishing a centrally determined body of law and so forth and so on. Why I am so sure about what I am saying? It is because of one fundamental law of nature that all the above contradict. It is the law of competition and selection. When you subsidize an industry, it becomes immune to competition; it is no longer subject to the laws of selection. Let me explain, imagine that I am feeding an animal but yet still putting it in the environment to which it belongs, say a lion, say that I come every day and give him a prey and he has to do no effort to consume it. Imagine that the environment in which this lion lives no longer provides enough food for his other fellow lions (he is the only to benefit from the meal, others have to hunt, otherwise, they’ll die), this experiment have really been tried and the results are surprising. Following my assumption of scarcity applied to all other lions except my chosen lion, what will happen? What will happen, indeed, is that the other lions will have to compete for the scarce resources and when nature provides no enough food for everybody, only the competitive and efficient who’s able to hunt and manage his resources very well will be able to survive, but the idle lions, the non competitive, the wasteful, will be condemned to die. As this example clearly shows, under natural laws, the lions most fitted to their environment will be able to survive. But my chosen lion is immune to this law because he has to face no scarcity of resources and he is going to survive anyway. The other lions survive because of their skill but he survives because of my “subsidies”. But the problem of this sort of help is that it is distortive and goes against natural laws, and if I have to leave again my lion to the laws of nature, he is the very first to die, why? It is shown that when animals no longer have to rely on their efforts to survive, they become idle, they lose the skill necessary for hunting and they will die as soon as you leave them again to the harsh condition of their environment.
Though it may sound counterintuitiv
Providing subsidies for art is probably the most immoral act I’ve seen governments ever do. As there is nothing more precious to me than enjoying pure and authentic artistic creations and also there is nothing that tortures me more than being obliged to see or hear the low quality and degenerate art. It is a betrayal to taste and a betrayal to real artists to subsidize art. Why? Because once you subsidize art, it is no longer taste and quality what determines what art should be sold and what art should be forgotten. It is because of the bureaucratic and cronyism that is prevailing in the domain of art these days that useless “artists”, that I am even willing to pay to avoid their stupid and low quality noise, are supplying their productions and labeling it art. It is true that true art emanates from a passion and a desire that transcends all our material endeavors but an artist cannot count on his passion alone to survive and if he is not gaining anything from it, he is very likely to forget about his talent and go find another job. When you support low quality pseudo art, you are impeding the market mechanism that will allow real art to be seen. It is true that art is a matter of taste and I know that probably my standards when it comes to art are very high to the point that I am sure that what the market will judge to be art, in my eyes will not be sufficiently enough to be judged so. Despite that, I am sure that our state of artistic productions will be much better if we get rid of government indoctrination oriented art. We should let our tastes and what we are really willing to pay for determine what should be qualified as art.
Take the case of the lion and replace it with an "artist” and you’ll see clearly what I mean.
If you want to ruin art, subsidize art, if you want to ruin education, charge the government of providing it and if you want to ruin national defense, also, make government the exclusive owner of arms, if you want the poor to remain poor, give them easy money, if you want to ruin justice, charge one government of establishing a centrally determined body of law and so forth and so on. Why I am so sure about what I am saying? It is because of one fundamental law of nature that all the above contradict. It is the law of competition and selection. When you subsidize an industry, it becomes immune to competition; it is no longer subject to the laws of selection. Let me explain, imagine that I am feeding an animal but yet still putting it in the environment to which it belongs, say a lion, say that I come every day and give him a prey and he has to do no effort to consume it. Imagine that the environment in which this lion lives no longer provides enough food for his other fellow lions (he is the only to benefit from the meal, others have to hunt, otherwise, they’ll die), this experiment have really been tried and the results are surprising. Following my assumption of scarcity applied to all other lions except my chosen lion, what will happen? What will happen, indeed, is that the other lions will have to compete for the scarce resources and when nature provides no enough food for everybody, only the competitive and efficient who’s able to hunt and manage his resources very well will be able to survive, but the idle lions, the non competitive, the wasteful, will be condemned to die. As this example clearly shows, under natural laws, the lions most fitted to their environment will be able to survive. But my chosen lion is immune to this law because he has to face no scarcity of resources and he is going to survive anyway. The other lions survive because of their skill but he survives because of my “subsidies”. But the problem of this sort of help is that it is distortive and goes against natural laws, and if I have to leave again my lion to the laws of nature, he is the very first to die, why? It is shown that when animals no longer have to rely on their efforts to survive, they become idle, they lose the skill necessary for hunting and they will die as soon as you leave them again to the harsh condition of their environment.
Though it may sound counterintuitiv
Providing subsidies for art is probably the most immoral act I’ve seen governments ever do. As there is nothing more precious to me than enjoying pure and authentic artistic creations and also there is nothing that tortures me more than being obliged to see or hear the low quality and degenerate art. It is a betrayal to taste and a betrayal to real artists to subsidize art. Why? Because once you subsidize art, it is no longer taste and quality what determines what art should be sold and what art should be forgotten. It is because of the bureaucratic and cronyism that is prevailing in the domain of art these days that useless “artists”, that I am even willing to pay to avoid their stupid and low quality noise, are supplying their productions and labeling it art. It is true that true art emanates from a passion and a desire that transcends all our material endeavors but an artist cannot count on his passion alone to survive and if he is not gaining anything from it, he is very likely to forget about his talent and go find another job. When you support low quality pseudo art, you are impeding the market mechanism that will allow real art to be seen. It is true that art is a matter of taste and I know that probably my standards when it comes to art are very high to the point that I am sure that what the market will judge to be art, in my eyes will not be sufficiently enough to be judged so. Despite that, I am sure that our state of artistic productions will be much better if we get rid of government indoctrination oriented art. We should let our tastes and what we are really willing to pay for determine what should be qualified as art.
Take the case of the lion and replace it with an "artist” and you’ll see clearly what I mean.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire