Should films be governmentally funded?

[Scott Spears]

I think Anarcho-capitalism would result in a much freer and more efficient society than a governed one.

This is the utopian dream of free marketers. Let's turn our lives over to the corporations because they can do the job so much better and cheaper than the government. What you'll end up is being under the control of corporations who only see the bottom line and if you don't fit into the bottom line, you are either pushed out of the way or not considered.

The corporation needs your land to expand it's factory and bam! the bulldozers show up and away goes your house. It's for the profits of the corporation. Everything becomes homogenzied because it's cheaper to make lots of the same thing instead of speciality items. We'll all drive grey cars, live in grey houses and eats grey food.

And don't you dare complain or stand up to the corporation because they have deep pockets and armies of lawyers who will out last you.

The government, as flawed as it it, is the only thing between us and corporations running over the little guy in the name of profit. You'll have "Love Canals" popping up everywhere without the government and the EPA. I can vote out a bad government official, but how to rid ourselves of a bad CEO?

Does the government waste money? Hell yes. A lot of that money goes to large corporations who contributed to the politician's campaign so in effect, we're on the way to a anacho-capitaliem society. Yeah, I just love 250 million dollar bridges to islands with a population of 50. (This is an example of bad governement and corporate money. This brings up another big problem which is the US needs major campaign finance reform, but that's another thread.)

What I'm saying is I don't want my life under the control on big business, so I'm not down with this plan.

Scott

[VideoFred]

And would someone please explain to me why you are more artistically free when no one supports you.

Euh...
Here in Belgium we say:
'You can not bite the hand who feeds you'

Fred.

[tlatosmd]

Half of the Beatles were art students and they turned what they learnt from their deadbeat lifestyle or whatever into a cash machine that still dominates the UK economy.

The only reason John and George went to art college was that it was a very good way to get to listen to the latest records and learn to play some of those chords and eventually the songs themselves. They used to get rock records by telling their teachers it was blues.

Then, John got to know Stu at art college. In Hamburg, Stu brought John, Paul, and George together with the German Exis, short for 'existentialists', such as Astrid Kirchherr and Klaus Voormann, who had a big influence on the Fab Fours's visual styles (other than the suits that had been former theater agent Brian Epstein's idea), and after 1965 Voormann created new visual styles for The Beatles again, such as by creating the cover to Revolver and by bringing them together with Heinz Edelmann who became art director for their animated feature Yellow Submarine.

[sunrise]

Here in Belgium we say:
'You can not bite the hand who feeds you'

Excatly. So this is where the ideology debate and the film financing debate melts together again.

I would rather be supported by a government that allows me to have free speech (remember in the modern democracy you are entitled to have an opinion), than some big coorperation tha forces me to hail their product (that's advertising).

michael

[mattias]

[I would rather be supported by a government that allows me to have free speech (remember in the modern democracy you are entitled to have an opinion), than some big coorperation tha forces me to hail their product (that's advertising).

i'd rather eat a nice steak than shit. you're making it sound so simple. there's no guarantee that a government won't use their power to stear the films they support and there are several examples of corporations that believe in art, for their public image if no higher purpose, and support it without requiring any creative input.

/matt

[mathis]

The idea of making great art in your spare time is a romantic idea by non-artists. For creating serious art you have to devote your life day-in day-out on topic.

[mattias]

indeed. in the past all artists were either independently wealthy or sponsored by someone who was.

/matt

[David M. Leugers]

ACTOR said

In the U.S. the government has not only the right to take your money (taxes) and give it to someone else, but the obligation to do so.

The main word there is "give". You bring up constitutionaly mandated functions and services and stretch the logic that paying people for it means government has carte blanche authority to take your money and do with it what they want. Since when is making a film a necessary function or service of government?

Your bizarre idea that the average working American only pays roughly 25% of his earning in taxes and that it is money well spent is well, bizarre.

David M. Leugers

[mattias]

Since when is making a film a necessary function or service of government?

it's not more or less necessary than anything else. making films might not be necessary in itself, but having a rich art world and a competitive film industry could very well be.

/matt

[sunrise]

there's no guarantee that a government won't use their power to stear the films they support

Legal stuff here from the Danish Film Act:

....
1. (1) The objective of this Act shall be to promote film art, and film and cinema culture, in Denmark.
....
2. (1) The Danish Film Institute shall have the following tasks:
....
4)to provide varied film activities for the general public,
....
6)to promote professional experimental film art and the development of talent by holding workshops,
....
3. (1) The Danish Film Institute shall be managed by an Executive Committee consisting of a maximum of seven members appointed by the Minister for Culture.

(2) Three members shall be nominated by the Minister for Culture and shall represent cultural, media and managerial expertise.
....
4. (1) The Executive Committee shall be in charge of the overall management of the activities of the Danish Film Institute and shall determine and follow up on the Institute's overall goals for the promotion of Danish films.
....
LIAISON COMMITTEE

9. The Executive Committee shall appoint a Liaison Committee consisting of user and audience organizations and interest groups to maintain contact with the users and audiences of the Danish Film Institute. The Liaison Committee shall monitor the activities of the Institute and propose suggestions to the Executive Committee, and shall appoint two members of the Council for Feature Films and two members of the Council for Short Films and Documentaries.
....
27. This Act shall not apply to Greenland and the Faroe Islands.
...

Complete text at http://www.kum.dk/sw4496.asp


But in short, the Film Institute is a selfgoverning institution following a few guidelines from the Minister for Culture. One of these guidelines is to have a varied selection of films and this is controlled by a Liaison Committee. I don't think it can be more independant when talking about government funding.

The Minister for Culture has also been apointed by a democratically elected government - the people have spoken.

michael

[sunrise]

Since when is making a film a necessary function or service of government?

It is a necessity to maintain a national culture and identity (NOT nationalistic!) in countries where film production is not economically viable. Otherwise we would be having this discussion on a wood carving forum instead.

michael

[MovieStuff]

Basically, taxation is considered by legal academics to be illegal

it's illegal only if they're enforcing the taxation on people who don't use any public property.....

No that's not what I am talking about. Income tax did not come about here in the states until the beginning of the 20th century and was supposed to be temporary. I am paraphrasing the conditions but it was about creating revenue to pay for military, I believe. It was not supposed to continue forever. Thus, most legal scholars see the continuation of taxation here in the states as legally unenforcible but, obviously, the govenment disagrees. ;)

Roger

[audadvnc]

The right to own property is essential to liberty and self-ownership. You don't need government, but you do need contracts and private courts. This may seem like a kind of government to some because it is one of the functions provided by government. But it is fundamentally different in that participation is not mandatory.

The American Indians definately valued liberty and self-ownership, but had no use for the right to own property; they thought the whole concept was ridiculous. Unfortunately their courts didn't have jurisdiction over the Euro settlers.

[audadvnc]

Not in the Beatle days (1962-1969). There was no Pop culture!
The Beatles and others made it! Without art funding.
In those days... Pop music was bad :twisted: remember?

If I look at Pop culture now....
It's more Pop industry, right?


Fred.

But EMI derived significant support from the gov't, didn't they? Isn't EMI a spinoff of BBC?

[Actor]

Hell no. What right does anyone, especially a government, have to forcibly take one persons property (money) and give it to another person? We have that here in the USA, sortof.

In the U.S. the government has not only the right to take your money (taxes) and give it to someone else, but the obligation to do so. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution requires the government to:

• "establish justice" -- i.e., make laws to keep the strong from overrunning the weak.
• "insure domestic tranquility" -- pay the cops to enforce the above.
• "provide for the common defence" -- pay the soldier/sailors all the way from the privates to the generals, and buy munitions so they can do their job.
• "promote the general Welfare" -- support of the arts comes under this one, as well as schools, roads, sewers, water systems, hospitals, etc.

All this stuff costs money. You can't opt out. The only other option is anarchy.

Government has no rights. The so-called rights of government you refer to are actually delegated grants of power that are enumerated in other articles and sections of the constitution, presumably by the consent of the governed. You are correct that you can't opt out and you don't get a choice to consent or not. Thus, consent of the governed is moot.

The preamble of the constitution states the goals of the founders, not a specific list of requirements for the government to fulfill. Article 1 section 8 grants the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Article III section 2 grants the power to establish justice. Ensuring domestic tranquility is implied thereby, but not explicitly stated.

Although you have some differences in interpretation I think you and I are in agreement here.

Right now the average American pays about 25% of his income toward taxes.

It's a lot more than 25%, Actor. Much much more. I'm curious to know where you got that number.

The Coming Generational Storm by Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004.

My marginal income tax bracket is 28%. It has been as high as 33% in past years. On top of that, I pay full social security taxes to the statutory limit. I pay medicare/medicaid taxes based on income. I pay state property tax, county and city property taxes, school district taxes, local and state sales taxes, and the excise taxes on products like gasoline, tobacco, and alcohol. I don't pay state income taxes in Texas, fortunately, although I think our property taxes make up for it. And this doesn't include the monthly "fees" tacked on to telephone and other utility services that are assessed on service rather than usage, and thus are really hidden taxes.

I haven't ever really calculated the complete picture, but I'm sure my total tax burden is actually somewhere between 40 to 50 percent of my income.

Mine too. But there are vast numbers out there who pay little or nothing: children, many of the elderly, those on welfare. Their numbers grow as our work force moves from the factory to McDonalds and Wal-Mart. Their numbers count when you start figuring an "average."

When you figured the percentage of your tax burden did you figure an average? Including any dependents who have little or no income?

And while I can quibble about the details of how it is spent, I think that the big picture is that we get good value for our money.

I don't feel that I'm getting good value for my money, Actor. Most of it is being spent on things I don't agree with, and which I would not consent to if I were given the option. But as you pointed out, I cannot opt out.

"Most of it" is spent on the military and social security. Which do you not agree with? Our military is the pre-eminent force on the planet. And as a soon-to-be receipient of SS, I don't object to that.

As for the rest, it is inevitable that some is going to be spent on things I don't agree with. That's life. I think if you were a member of Congress and had to decide on how it is to be spent, you would not object to as much as you thihk.

Government exists by coercion of the governed, not by consent.

OK. But would you rather be coerced by a monarch, a despot or an elected government? That's pretty much the choice.

This is what George Washington warned of in his farewell address. He said "How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Anarchism is a social system based on the voluntary interaction of free individuals. It refers to a stateless society, not chaos. It is the only system that permits a complete recognition of the self-ownership rights of every individual. It would certainly be a better system to live under than one in which the privileged few get to rule everyone else.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, "It's a great idea. The problem is, it won't work."