The Scalia Code
---
I think we already know how Justice Antonin Scalia is going to vote on Rumsfeld v. FAIR, the pending case challenging the Solomon Amendment:
Oh, and I don't see "fund the arts" anywhere among the enumerated powers. The Spending Clause doesn't count, because it requires spending for the general welfare, not the limited welfare of politically favored artists in politically favored disciplines in politically favored locales.
Spending for the arts is the purest expression of the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling. The fact that every public dollar spent on "the arts" is really a taxpayer dollar spent on "the arts," against his wishes, means nothing. The fact that every public dollar spent on "the arts" is really a dollar spent on an artist, based on the subjective whim of bureaucrats deemed to have "superior tastes" or "higher knowledge" than the art market itself, means nothing (the simple truth is that the reason there are so many "starving artists" is because most artists suck). The fact that art is simply not a public good (i.e., it can be privately owned), means nothing. Someone "smarter than you" thinks otherwise -- now pay up.
Government funding for the arts is anti-capitalist, anti-American central planning. It may not be a lot of central planning; it may not be an especially dangerous form of central planning. But it is central planning nonetheless.
And that makes it just plain wrong. Which means that Scalia is also just plain wrong.
The government can decide what artwork is worthwhile without being accused of censorship as long as it is funding that art, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an audience Thursday at the Juilliard School.But of course government isn't paying the piper -- taxpayers are. So the analogy is invalid. It's comparable to arguing that a couple getting married not only has the right to hire the band and choose the playlist, but also has the right to force you to attend and buy them a gift.
"The First Amendment has not repealed the ancient rule of life, that he who pays the piper calls the tune," Scalia said.
The justice, who limited his discussion to art issues, said he wasn't suggesting that government stop funding the arts, but that if it does fund artwork, it is entitled to have a say in the content, just like when it runs a school system.
Oh, and I don't see "fund the arts" anywhere among the enumerated powers. The Spending Clause doesn't count, because it requires spending for the general welfare, not the limited welfare of politically favored artists in politically favored disciplines in politically favored locales.
Spending for the arts is the purest expression of the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling. The fact that every public dollar spent on "the arts" is really a taxpayer dollar spent on "the arts," against his wishes, means nothing. The fact that every public dollar spent on "the arts" is really a dollar spent on an artist, based on the subjective whim of bureaucrats deemed to have "superior tastes" or "higher knowledge" than the art market itself, means nothing (the simple truth is that the reason there are so many "starving artists" is because most artists suck). The fact that art is simply not a public good (i.e., it can be privately owned), means nothing. Someone "smarter than you" thinks otherwise -- now pay up.
Government funding for the arts is anti-capitalist, anti-American central planning. It may not be a lot of central planning; it may not be an especially dangerous form of central planning. But it is central planning nonetheless.
And that makes it just plain wrong. Which means that Scalia is also just plain wrong.
Posted by KipEsquire on
23 September 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.