Fundamental Political Principles 101

Learning to think in terms of principles cuts through just about all Gordian knots, whether social, political, ethical, or even more basic issues. Here is a terrific example, one in which the issue always escapes those who fail to see the simple principle involved.

First, the context:

WorldNetDaily: Taxpayer-supported 'art': Arab sodomizing Bush,Posted: June 11, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern, by Dr. Kelly Hollowell

I just flipped when I was told unsuspecting taxpayers in Florida were funding a Broward County [Florida] Art Exhibition honoring a painting of an Arab sodomizing President Bush.

...[W]hen the government uses taxpayer dollars to fund an Art Guild exhibit featuring a painting of an Arab sodomizing President Bush, it not only draws very little ire from concerned citizens … it actually wins an award! Specifically, Alfred Phillips, a South Florida gay activist, submitted the painting entitled "Yahoo!" depicting a naked President Bush bending over a barrel of oil while being sodomized by an Arab man. With a background of stars and stripes, the sad excuse for "art" not only demeans the president, it further depicts him crushing Iraqi civilians and U.S.
soldiers beneath the barrel of oil.

So where is the public outrage? Sadly, local citizens have failed to express any considerable opposition to this assault on public decency and national pride. Moreover, it has received very little national media attention. According to the Broward County Cultural Affairs Division, their office has received very few complaints. I would like to change that. Nearly 25 percent of the Broward County Art Guild annual budget is provided by taxpayers. I suggest their public funding be revoked.

Whether or not someone homosexual is involved is not germaine to this issue. Whether Christian symbols were used in the painting or not is not relevant either.

The most relevant issue is government funding from any source of art and anything else except the proper protection of the rights of citizens. Whether art is valuable or not, good art versus bad art, preserving the culture are not relevant to the fundamental issue. The only relevant issue is whether or not taxpayer dollars should fund government projects such as art.

The answer is no. Dr. Hollowell is fully correct that the funding should be revoked and never reinstitute for this or any other "art" project.

Tax money is money taken by force from earners. No amount of smoke-blowing that it is voluntary can be accepted. If it is voluntary, why are people who evade paying tax in prisons?

Taypayers have no say on how their property, their money, gets spent by government. Their right to property, one of the big four fundamental rights, gets trampled. On the receiving end, no one, but no one, has the right to receive property taken by the initiation of force by anyone, including government. In this case, it is tax money at the county level.

When understood in terms of fundamental rights, the issue becomes crystal clear.

How should art and "art" be supported? By any private means people choose to engage in. Most "art" these days is not worth a nickel, but that does not impact the taxpaying citizen when it is privately funded by people who have more money than sense.

Whether city, county, state, or federal, money from taxpayers should fund only vital functions of government--i.e., those which defend the citizens against internal and external enemies, and courts. There should be no National Endowment of the Arts, for example, unless privately funded.

Your right to your money is your right to property. Your right to property, which includes your ownership of yourself, is the means you exercise your right to life. A violation of any fundamental right threatens the grand-daddy of all rights, your right to life.