Thursday
(0)The current Time Out (print edition) quotes a playwright, Nabil Shaban, attacking the government's spending on war:
Blair is misusing the democratic process, and taxpayers' money – which should be spent on health and education at home.
To show that this war is not in his name, Mr Shaban's has publicly given back to the government a £24,800 grant awarded as funding for one of his plays. This publicity stunt, however, does raise an important question. If Mr Shaban objects to taxpayers' money being spent on something he deems unnecessary - as opposed to hospitals and schools - why did he in the first place think it right to receive accept taxpayers' money for his play?
Sorry to sound trite, but this man obviously sees his play as educational/cultural (two ideas often conflated by the staterati).
He probably sincerely feels his play expanded people's imaginative lives, built something constructive, added to a moral debate or somesuch. Perhaps it did. He'd probably proudly quote the physicist cited by Steven Weinberg, asked by a Congressional committee if the Supercollider particle accelerator would help defend the country who responded "No but it will help make the country worth defending".
I'm sure he includes himself in the set of good, beautiful things deserving of government subsidy, in place of horrid, nasty blowing-people-to-bits things.
-
Posted by mark at April 3, 2003 11:03 PM
I'm sure he includes himself in the set of good, beautiful things deserving of government subsidy,
Who doesn't? Just b/c he feels entitled to such a moral claim, doesn't mean he is justified in it or above criticism for it.
Posted by Byron at April 4, 2003 12:13 AM
"why did he in the first place think it right to receive accept taxpayers' money for his play?"
And why didn't he instead give it to a hospital or school, instead of to the government--which may spend it on the war?
Posted by Ken Hagler at April 4, 2003 12:54 AM
Raises the issue of hypothecated taxes, of course, something long opposed by the left, for the very good reason that many of us would only want to pay a tiny fraction of our tiny tax bills, on things we deem essential, like national defence and the courts.
The guy in the article probably means well, but I guess he did not stop to think of where opposing using "government" (ie our) money could lead him. Maybe someone should send this fellow some copies of David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom". Hit the iron while it is hot!
Posted by Tom at April 4, 2003 07:34 AM
No, of course, I agree Byron - it certainly doesn!t mean he's entitled to that moral claim!
Posted by mark at April 4, 2003 08:56 AM
