±«Óãtv

*Cough* COPYCAT! *cough* Ahem. What does Derry think it is, Manhattan?

A hideous idea, a waste of public funds, a testament to the gross egos involved. Oh, and isn't it Londonderry?

We'll guard old Derry's walls

Who's being expected to pay £15m for this? And will it be voluntary or, in the great tradition of collectivist government rip-off policies, will it involve the coercive measures of law by which citizens are forced to pay for this statue whether they want to or not?

Here's my argument.

(a) If there's enough popular support for this then it is justified. If there's not enough, then it's not justified.

(b) If the £15m can be raised by voluntary means, it will prove that it has popular support, will ensure that those who will appreciate it have paid for it and the project will be justified.

(c) If, as I suspect, they won't have a snowball's chance in hell of raising £15m anywhere near as quickly as they'd like to, then the project has not proved it is justified by popular appeal.

It's much more difficult to do these things morally than it is just to steal from people agaisnt their will.... isn't it.

John,

surely as a capitalist, you would agree that a good strong examination of the tourism business case would be a better use of time?

I'd be very interested to hear how long the ROI on 15m would be.

Given a decent business case and the fact that that there is a place in public expenditure for municipal art, this may not be a white elephant.

Geee.

An interesting quote from one Jesus;-

Luke11:47
47 “Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and it was your fathers who killed them. 48 “So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build their tombs."

PB

It superior to the statue in Manhatten.

PB,

RE 6

I don't get it..

Gee Dubyah- I reject your 'munipal art from "public" expenditure' case on principle.

The tourism point, though, is interesting. If there's truly money to be made from the statue, then the people who will be making the money will have no problem as good businesspeople investing in the statue. Say, for example, I own Derry Bus Tours in Londonderry. If I stand to make a significant amount of dough from the added interest there would be in Derry because of this statue, then I won't hesitate to find a way to become financially involved in the project.

Sponsorship of the statue by local business, actually, is a fairly good way of going about this, if there really is a business case for it. If, as I suspect, there isn't..... then either (a) steal from taxpayers to construct it or (b) give it up.

Unfortunately, (a) is the only language understood by many of the advocates of this sort of thing.

Dont worry Gee Dubyah. PB doesnt get it either!

John:

You are of course right. William, and others of his ilk, should hand over their own doubloons for the art they want to enjoy and not expect the rest of us to fund it.

Once again statist principles robbing the individual of money, and of the ability to make their own value judgments about art.

Stephen G.

Re post 7 Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso,CPUR wrote:

"It's superior to the statue in Manhattan."

Which statue in Manhattan? Are you thinking of the one in New Jersey?

Regards,
Michael

John,

if I understand your position correctly, you reject all collective endeavour and centralisation of decision making. My explanation may be a bit loose here - I'm genuinely interested in this though..

However, is there not a point at which one actually starts to sacrifice one's freedom to the principle of libertarianism? I'm thinking here that you are speaking against (by extrapolation) any form of division of labour.

Stephen, I am a tax payer too. I support the use of my tax money to finance the creation of a good society. Providing health care and education,etc. Art is also a valuable aspect of the society I would like my taxes to help create. If enough people vote for a political party that wishes to stop funding these kinds of things, I am a democrat and will accept that outcome. The truth is, though, that most people in our society agree that it is important to provide these things and it is good to use SOME tax money to provide it. I agree that we should get as many private sponsors as possible but I think it would be reasonable for arts council funding to cover about half this figure.

Gee Dubyah- Sorry, I'm not entirely understanding what you mean by division of labour.... is a great primer too though, BTW....

Helen- Your position is infuriatingly shortsighted. You're saying that because YOU'RE happy with YOUR tax money being used to pay for art... that everyone should be taxed accordingly. The definition of "theft" is taking someone's money without their consent. So, conversely, in that sentiment, you are approving of government sponsored theft against your fellow citizens on the premise that you are part of a majority that want that theft carried out. You're saying "This art is important enough to ME that - whether you want it or not - you're going to be stolen from to accomplish it."

Quite frankly, I can think of nothing more arrogant, insulting, or unjust.

Helen: What John said pretty much agrees with me.

If you want more details on my position then you can read an article I write recently about the Belfast Telegraph campaign to save the Belfast Festival with more government funding. Different issue, but the same principles apply.

You can find the article by clicking on my name, or pasting this link into your web browser:

Regards,

SG

Helen: What John said pretty much agrees with me.

If you want more details on my position then you can read an article I write recently about the Belfast Telegraph campaign to save the Belfast Festival with more government funding. Different issue, but the same principles apply.

You can find the article by clicking on my name, or pasting this link into your web browser:

Regards,

SG

Helpful article John, thanks.
What I meant by division of labour was that some folk handle centralised stuff (eg government) I understand now that your position is to favour a "government lite" - just enough to keep everyone playing by the same rules - but to devolve as much responsibility as possible out to the individual.
To reject municipal art from this position is entirely reasonable. But noone would do it and we'd all live in some kind of featureless cocnrete monotony (reminds me of a housing estate I lived in whilst a student in manchester...)

I wonder though, how many of mankinds' collective endeavours would have taken place if this concept were executed in it's purest sense as you seem to favour? Indeed how many of the things we might yet acheive collectively would be rendered impossible?

I see the appeal of liberterianism, but I think it is not practicable in it's fullest sense - anarchy would follow...

People are commenting on the ethics of using taxes to fund public art. I approve of public art, but I do not approve of the statue proposed. I object, not on financial grounds, but simply because the statue represents religion is idealistic terms, when I believe that religious division has been the ruination of Derry. Why glorify the source of our problems?

Public art should be for ALL the citizens. A sizeable minority here do not hold any religious beliefs and do not want to be confronted by religious art on this scale. Their taxes should not be used to pay for art which glorifies, as they see it, a source of social division. Public art should elevate the things that we share, not the things that divide us.

I liked your web site and indeed your music.

think about it, it will be a new place for our alcholics d sleep which would prolly be it big toe