jump of all, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a proper role of govemment. Admittedly, reliable objectives, such as public health and safety, are so essential to the survival of large cities and of nations that government has a duty to ensure that they are met. However, these objectives should not extend tenuously to preserving cultural traditions. Moreover, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as cultural patron. Inadequate resources call for restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is unconscionable to relegate prescriptive decisions as to which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving, valuable, or needy to a few legislators, whose notions about culture efficiency be misguided or unrepresentative of those of the general populace. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in advance of the cultural agendas of their home towns and states, or of lobbyists with the most money and influence.
Secondly, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a necessary role of government. A wish of
sequestered funding might justify an exception. However, culture--by which I mainly mean the fine
arts--has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses, and not on the government. The Medicis, a powerful banking family of Renaissance Italy, support artists Michelangelo and Raphael. During the 20th Century the primary source of cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller and Getty. And tomorrow cultural support will come from our new technology and media...If you insufficiency to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .
No comments:
Post a Comment