🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael James Tino writes:

> [I'll gladly read] an intelligent argument against public funding 
> for the arts (something a bit deeper than "I'm a libertarian, so I'm 
> offended")[.]

I wasn't trying to make any argument.  I was just asking questions.  But 
if you're requesting an argument, I'll give you one.

In my opinion, the compulsory funding of the NEA violates freedom of 
artistic expression, which I think is an inalienable individual right.
People who positively disagree with the NEA's aesthetics have to pay anyway, 
under penalty of jail, instead of being left free to spend their money 
propagating their own aesthetics.  I don't see that as any way to keep a free
country going.  I see it as federal officiating of cultural discourse
at the point of gun.  Since all men are created equal, no man in my 
opinion may rightfully compel another as to what to call culturally
important or valuable or worth paying for.

> In the meantime, please don't clutter our mailboxes with your open 
> letters to appointed officials.

I sent nothing to your mailbox.


Respectfully,

Ray Ubinger
rcu@acpub.duke.edu