No. I’m not referring to thieves who break into museums and steal paintings. I’m referring to artists who steal from innocent people.
64% of Jersey City, New Jersey voters approved a referendum to impose an Art Tax. Adrienne Romero reports for The Jersey Journal:
Kate Kilpatrick stood in the parking lot of 107 Morgan St. where the city’s autumn oddities and alternative art market was shining a spotlight on small business creators.
Kilpatrick, dressed in a long black dress and colorful face mask, was selling her Victorian-inspired jewelry, which has helped keep her financially afloat during the pandemic.
On Wednesday, Jersey City became the first municipality in the state to create a tax that benefits its local arts and help local artists like Kilpatrick. Artists who sold their creations at the alternative art market Saturday said Jersey City is setting a good example for other municipalities.
I don’t mean to be too hard on Kilpatrick and her cohorts. After all, our economy is flooded with taxpayer-funded subsidies. Artists pay taxes, too. So they are victims. Their pockets are routinely picked by our government for the unearned benefit of sundry others. Why shouldn’t they get a little cut of the loot?
But this is all wrong. It’s legalized burglary. And fighting it requires calling out every new institution of it, no matter how inconsequential it may seem. A few government-confiscated dollars to subsidize art is just as wrong as $billions for “clean energy” subsidies. And it’s not just wrong for the legalized burglary, politely labeled “redistribution of wealth,” that it is. The art world will be thoroughly corrupted. The question is, which artists will be privileged to get the loot, and which will not? How will the criteria be chosen? Cronyism and political connections, that’s how. Political cronyism won’t foster good art. It will foster politicized art. Only a free market--a market free of government coercion--can foster a healthy art market. Art consumers, not government officials, should decide what art gets funded and what doesn’t. Voluntarism, not force.
This is an immoral tax. The 64% are free to “support the arts” anytime they want. But their values should not be forced on the 36% who have other uses for their money. This is not proper government. A government should protect every individual’s right to spend their money as they see fit. Rights-protecting functions like police and anti-fraud laws are proper tax purposes. They protect us from thieves. Forcing people to pay for art they would not buy voluntarily is not rights-protecting. It is rights-violating. A government should never become a tool of theft and favoritism.
Related Reading:
Energy Subsidies: Cronyism Breeds Cronyism
Turning a Subsidy into ‘Payment for a Value Delivered’: Corporate Welfare for NJ Solar Companies
"Clean" Energy Subsidies vs. Oil Industry "Subsidies"
Cronyism Doesn't Promote Competition: It Limits Competition
No comments:
Post a Comment