Comment Rescue: Libertarian Logical Fallacies
The logical fallacy that Libertarians like most, above all logical fallacies is that slippery slope argument. Observe Steve’s comment:
Taken to the full degree, Jason’s argument–”If they can’t get paying customers interested in what they are doing then they need to hang it up,” is an argument for eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts and any other state subsidies for the arts.
Very far from the truth. I’m very much in favor of public funding for the arts and this happens to be a topic that I am very close to.
I do happen think that the funding formula should be more geared to funding projects that have a high level of earned income. I am a Democrat in the true sense and I say let the people vote with their feet and let the state bucks flow to the projects that the public finds worthy.
But this is kind of a moot point, since Delaware contributes such a miserly pittance to the arts I was kind of leaving the topic of public finding off the table. (I think the embarrassing funding gives the Delaware Arts Council the right to do their job in blissful anonymity.)
If you read the original post, you see that I am talking about private funding – and the relative long-term uselessness of funding classical music in general and Opera in particular.
Jason,
Nice try but no bananas for you.
I didn’t create the slippery slope here–you did.
Witness your own sentence in the “comment rescue”: “I just think that the funding formula should be more geared to funding projects that have a high level of earned income,” followed by the incredibly amazing, “the relative long-term uselessness of funding classical music in general and Opera in particular.”
Let’s face facts: you got caught making a pretty non-diversity-loving-it-should-pay-for-itself argument based on the fact that you personally don’t like opera or classical music.
I only used the standards you set.
On the contrary you used the logical fallacy to say that my point “taken to the full degree” would result in eliminating the NEA (an agency I worked for by the way).
That is text book slippery slope fallacy.
Also, I personally hate opera and am agnostic on classical music.
I am in the huge majority.
Jason
I’m perfectly willing to let anybody reading make up their own mind.
Not all slippery slope arguments are invalid–you guys use them all the time about Republicans when it suits your purposes, so get real.
The fact that you worked for NEA hasn’t got a thing to do with your original post or your view that the only art that ought to matter is that which garners immediate approval from the masses.
Now, instead of admitting that you overstated your point (art should have to pay for itself), you’re upset that I called you on it.
Hey, some days you eat the bear, and some days the bear eats you.
I personally hated “Piss Christ,” and THAT was paid for by public funds. The NEA, I believe.
And I think I’m in the huge majority on that.
Your lack of musical appreciation is not (thank God) a problem for the rest of us.
You are so far off base.
Opera had immediate approval from the masses when verdi was putting on his shows over 100 years ago.
The premier performance, by the Ballets Russes, of Igor Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring caused a riot in Paris in 1913.
You go ahead and like classical music – but spare me the bullshit. You want to use state funds to prop up a dead art form. Fine. It is better than invading Iraq I guess.
Steve,
Instead of saying “classical music” say “formerly popular music” it would be much more honest.
Jason,
I simply can’t add anything else to your conversion to Libertarianism and your coming out of the closet as a cultural low-brow.
I’ll say good night, Gracie. “Good night, Gracie.”
“Not all slippery slope arguments are invalid”
Now there is a truth few know. Any chance you could teach it to Al Mascitti? If you tell him the predictable consequence of some action (that he likes, of course), his knee twitches and out comes the “You are committing the slippery slope fallacy.”
Here’s the scoop on it folks:
“If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.”
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
But one simply cannot say that just ANY argument of this type is fallacious. The devil is in the details:
“This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious.”
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
_______________
Now in defense of Jason. Jason would have a valid argument if he simply stated that Delaware revenues are such that supporting all high art forms are too expensive and the ones that should be supported are the ones that are the most popular. BUT the federal government through the NEA is better suited to support the arts programs in the states that the states cannot.
Instead of saying “classical music” say “formerly popular music” it would be much more honest.
It’s more like”formerly popular music that has become foundational to western musical culture.” And the fact that there are still many practitioners (performing and composing) means it is not dead. It just isn’t as popular as you seem to demand, Jason.
But popularity does not have any relation to cultural longevity or even significance, and certainly there was plenty of music penned in Verdi’s day (or go back to Monteverdi — whose work is still being performed) that no longer sees the light of day. As I noted on the other thread, classical music and opera, have a long history of being paid for by royalty and wealthy merchant class. These people forming this fund are doing a thing that has a very long history.
All of those organizations out measuring the health of various metro areas, “The Best Places to Live” and so on do take into account the cultural life of that area. A vibrant arts community says alot about its residents, its ability to support these institutions, as well as the supporting industries.
What I don’t get, is how you can translate the fact that these artforms are of no interest to you into an argument against support of those artforms by people who have the means and the interest to do so?
You make some good points. I guess I’m not saying that these modern day Dukes and Duchesses shouldn’t support classical music. I just don’t see the point.
I guess they’ll pass their taste in music down to the next generation of Lords and Ladies and so the opera will slouch ever forward…much to my chagrin.
if anyone knows art it’s a man that stands shirtless and has people sign his areola in front of the capital building!
Well, let’s face facts here: we have a huge budget deficit, because the Congress spends much more than the people want to pay in taxes. And spending money on things like the National Endowment for the Arts is spending money on luxuries, not necessities; we could survive without the NEA.
If you have more money going out than you have coming in, does it really make sense for you to buy a painting for the living room wall? And if it doesn’t make sense in your personal budget, why should spending money for luxury items make sense for the government?
Congress spends much more than the people want to pay in taxes.
Only certain people; relatively few.
we could survive without the NEA.
Sure, when we get to survivalist mode – but we clearly aren’t there yet.
And if it doesn’t make sense in your personal budget
Clever argument, but I support lots of government expenditures that don’t make sense for my personal budget.
The budget pretext for wanting to cut the NEA is complete nonsense. The few dollars they do get get multiplied and leveraged in every community that gets a grant. The NEA is probably the most cost effective use of tax money around.
Also, the dollars passing through the NEA are so few that they are invisible within the context of the national budget.
It is like saying you are going to balance your household budget by cutting down on nutmeg purchases.
Also, coming from a family of artists, as I do, there is nothing more ridiculous than the pushback by conservatives on the NEA RE: the Pissing Jesus and dubbing it a liberal issue. It isn’t unless there is a weird conflation of post-modern trends in the arts and political theory that I don’t know about.
My mom’s style was realism, my sister Fran is an abstractionist. IMHO. the new-fangled sensationalist art forms rarely satisfy and are a cheap shot, at best, for the most part.
That the NEA was following trendy bullshit should have been called out and was. To say a pox on the NEA is ridiculous. Just provide decent stewardship, is all.
I am an Opera Singer
I stand on painted Tape
It tells me where I’m going
And where to throw my cape….
If I had to guess, I’d say she liked the treatment! The withered naked teen women pulled her alcohol up, wincing her reinserted sizes and convex thong.
Jason,
I think one needs liberty to produce art, therefore one needs libertarians who think they are leftists to make art, in order to have art shows. Come on Jason, You, Steve and I typically protect everybody- including your right to criticize our wackier ideas- but libertarianism invites everybody to the table to talk about these issues. It typitcally does not bludegon them for bringing the issue up. Read Frida Kahlo….read Louis Simpson, read Hemmingway…of course this work and modern works of art need a radical kind of free creativity to work, and they are going to do it whether there is or is not an NEA. But the NEA does help introduce us to artists. So balaance it out. I would personally like to see alot more art in public places.