A Stitch in Haste

To review:

1. "Art" is simply not a public good. A work of art — whether a "good" (e.g., a painting or sculpture) or a "service" (e.g., a concert or ballet) is an entirely privatizable entity. A person can own a painting; a concert hall can charge admission.

2. The notion that "art is different" — or, worse, that "art should be above mere economics" — is an entirely subjective, political opinion that cannot be demonstrated (i.e., "proven") in any objective, universal way. There simply is no basis for the claim that "culture is a market failure."

3. The reason there are so many starving artists is because most artists suck. That is an objectively demonstrable fact: markets are their own proof, including the market (or lack thereof) for crap peddled as "art."

Armed with that, let's check Representative Mike Doyle's fiscal priorities:

At the Music and Intellectual Property Policy Day co-sponsored by [the American Constitution Society] and the Future of Music Coalition earlier this month, Congressman Mike Doyle (D-PA) proposed an innovative program to "encourage the creation of new and different music" by "find[ing] some way to make a career in music more viable economically."

Noting that "even small amounts of money could allow many artists to ... build[] a fan base, spreading new music across the country and entertaining more people," he cited the NEA as offering attractive examples of similar programs. Rep. Doyle also discussed a Canadian program "to promote and develop modern music" that has "created a vibrant cultural renaissance in Montreal," as well as "a cultural center that's driving new investment and new jobs."

This is, of course, utter nonsense. Classic, insolent Broken Window Fallacy.

Every dollar confiscated by government is a drain on the economy. The fact that the dollar will be spent elsewhere (e.g., on unsuccessful musicians) neither negates that fact nor legitimizes the confiscation.

What good is a "vibrant cultural renaissance" in Montreal to a taxpayer in Vancouver? What (private) projects were eliminated, through taxes, from Vancouver and denied to its residents in order to fund a "renaissance" in Montreal? And, more to the point, why should a politician (or, worse, a bureaucrat) in Ottawa get to decide that, bottom line, Montreal is simply more important than Vancouver?

And this phenomenon is of course not limited to geography. For example, to tax prosperous physicians — in Montreal, Vancouver, Pennsylvania or anywhere else — in order to underwrite failing artists is to decide that artists (specifically, bad artists) are more important than doctors (specifically, good doctors).

That simply cannot be right. Indeed, it is the height of moral defectiveness to pretend that you know better than the market what is and is not "worthwhile" or "valuable" (To whom? Blank-out. In what context? Blank-out.) — to the point of levying taxes to "correct" the "mistakes" of the "unenlightened" free market (i.e., taxpayers).

It's quite simple really: The fact that people won't pay to see an artist is proof that his art has no value — not that he "needs a subsidy" in order that he may have an "economically viable career" (i.e., one without — gasp! — a "day job") in the form of forced consumption of his art through taxpayer appropriations. For a politician like Mike Doyle to arrogantly presume that, since he happens to think that modern music is neat-o and that, since he is a politician, he therefore has a legitimate sanction to impose his subjective tastes and preferences on his constituents (and everyone else) is the height of command-and-control hubris.

It is not the purpose of politicians to ensure that anyone is spared the insult of having to work a "day job." It is not the purpose of taxes to pick our playlists for us.

Kip's Law: Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.