| Forced to do Lessening requirements no force Prohibited to do Lessening restrictions no prohibitions |
Culture -- in all its forms -- and in its constituent elements is a human attempt at
mitigating or offsetting the hardships and pain, the fear and horribleness, that the
natural being of humans endures and creates. Cultures, from prehistory to now run
to every conceivable notion. The endless varieties and continual peregrinations of
cultures point out the diversity of humanity. Culture attempts to answer the Why are
We Here?, on the other hand Politics and Economy answer How We will be Here.
Clearly they are different questions.
Culture springs from the minds of people unremittingly. This is good, and is a major
part in the "pursuit of the happiness" or as previously stated, "People doing what
they want to ... ." The problem is that oft times the second portion of the dictum is
ignored "... so long as they hurt no one." Cultures which hurt people cannot be
considered equal to other cultures. It would contradict the inherent equal worth of
individuals. No one is worth less than another (and seeing worth as value, each
individual, as "mind" values supremely his "tool," his life; the value of a person
resides in the thoughts of the person. Just as a person considers himself to be of
infinite value, so, too, do all other persons. This self-valuation is the core of
survival.) If everyone is equal than a culture or cultural element can not denigrate
individuals and be considered equal to a culture or cultural element which enhances
life.
Cultures which throw virgins into volcanoes or bind the feet of women or do any one
of hundreds of similar negative things are simply not equal to cultures that have a
greater respect for individuals, man or woman.
Restricting these sorts of cultures is good, but rather by persuasion than by force.
Through example and through reason is the way to go.
In cultural elements -- such as music -- painting -- sculpture, etc., there are no
bounds except "community standards." This will be expressed ideally through
property rights. Expressed in the complex rights of not to force or prevent, neither to
require nor prohibit. If an artist seeks to do a project there are several ways to
approach it. He can get his own earnings to produce the work. He can propose a
work and have it funded by a patron. Or he can be asked, commissioned, to create
a work.
Because the value of a thing resides in the beholder it is irrelevant what the artist
thinks about his work. All his gobbledygook about social relevance, a statement,
esthetics, anything, is of no consequence if the beholders of the work think that it is
crap, or offensive or loathsome, etc. The artist took a risk, on his work, his labor,
that his trade off for survival would be accepted by the public, or even just some
small portion of the people. The artist has no right to force the work on anyone, nor
does he have the right to have the work supported by taxes or "gifts" or "grants."
Nor does he have a right to exhibit his work. He should not be prohibited in any
way. If he can launch his own exhibit, or can procure a patron or other support, even
a sale of the work, then let them exhibit it.
It is this trade, this dichotomy between the desires of the artist and the willingness
of the beholder that results in popularity or disparagement. It is this ratio which
results in artist communes and communities, and neighborhoods, in the joining
together of like-minded people in peaceful cohabitation. It makes for cities, and the
great ones neither force nor prohibit the variety this ratio produces.
The problems only arise in the use of force. To either push art or prohibit it. Forcing
a city, a publicly owned museum, to hold a Mapplethorpe exhibit is wrong. It
requires people to pay for things they do not like or want. Prohibiting a private
gallery from showing the same photographics is wrong also -- it is interference in
the pursuit of happiness.
This whole rationale can be seen every where in every culture. Between the avant
garde and change promoters, and the traditionalists and observant. When the
paradigm held is socialistic the deck is stacked in the favor of forcing involvement
in one area and prohibiting other activity elsewhere. In Warsaw or Cleveland or
Timbuktu -- the current paradigm sets everyone at each other because force and
prohibition run rampant.
At the least this ratio is a different sort of cultural element, though it is the largest
element, than throwing virgins to the volcanoes, on the surface. After all, the choices
seem so drastically different. And one is ancient and one so current. But both use
"force." Only in degree are they different, and so then even our attitude to our
paradigm of culture also lies along a left -- right continuum.
mitigating or offsetting the hardships and pain, the fear and horribleness, that the
natural being of humans endures and creates. Cultures, from prehistory to now run
to every conceivable notion. The endless varieties and continual peregrinations of
cultures point out the diversity of humanity. Culture attempts to answer the Why are
We Here?, on the other hand Politics and Economy answer How We will be Here.
Clearly they are different questions.
Culture springs from the minds of people unremittingly. This is good, and is a major
part in the "pursuit of the happiness" or as previously stated, "People doing what
they want to ... ." The problem is that oft times the second portion of the dictum is
ignored "... so long as they hurt no one." Cultures which hurt people cannot be
considered equal to other cultures. It would contradict the inherent equal worth of
individuals. No one is worth less than another (and seeing worth as value, each
individual, as "mind" values supremely his "tool," his life; the value of a person
resides in the thoughts of the person. Just as a person considers himself to be of
infinite value, so, too, do all other persons. This self-valuation is the core of
survival.) If everyone is equal than a culture or cultural element can not denigrate
individuals and be considered equal to a culture or cultural element which enhances
life.
Cultures which throw virgins into volcanoes or bind the feet of women or do any one
of hundreds of similar negative things are simply not equal to cultures that have a
greater respect for individuals, man or woman.
Restricting these sorts of cultures is good, but rather by persuasion than by force.
Through example and through reason is the way to go.
In cultural elements -- such as music -- painting -- sculpture, etc., there are no
bounds except "community standards." This will be expressed ideally through
property rights. Expressed in the complex rights of not to force or prevent, neither to
require nor prohibit. If an artist seeks to do a project there are several ways to
approach it. He can get his own earnings to produce the work. He can propose a
work and have it funded by a patron. Or he can be asked, commissioned, to create
a work.
Because the value of a thing resides in the beholder it is irrelevant what the artist
thinks about his work. All his gobbledygook about social relevance, a statement,
esthetics, anything, is of no consequence if the beholders of the work think that it is
crap, or offensive or loathsome, etc. The artist took a risk, on his work, his labor,
that his trade off for survival would be accepted by the public, or even just some
small portion of the people. The artist has no right to force the work on anyone, nor
does he have the right to have the work supported by taxes or "gifts" or "grants."
Nor does he have a right to exhibit his work. He should not be prohibited in any
way. If he can launch his own exhibit, or can procure a patron or other support, even
a sale of the work, then let them exhibit it.
It is this trade, this dichotomy between the desires of the artist and the willingness
of the beholder that results in popularity or disparagement. It is this ratio which
results in artist communes and communities, and neighborhoods, in the joining
together of like-minded people in peaceful cohabitation. It makes for cities, and the
great ones neither force nor prohibit the variety this ratio produces.
The problems only arise in the use of force. To either push art or prohibit it. Forcing
a city, a publicly owned museum, to hold a Mapplethorpe exhibit is wrong. It
requires people to pay for things they do not like or want. Prohibiting a private
gallery from showing the same photographics is wrong also -- it is interference in
the pursuit of happiness.
This whole rationale can be seen every where in every culture. Between the avant
garde and change promoters, and the traditionalists and observant. When the
paradigm held is socialistic the deck is stacked in the favor of forcing involvement
in one area and prohibiting other activity elsewhere. In Warsaw or Cleveland or
Timbuktu -- the current paradigm sets everyone at each other because force and
prohibition run rampant.
At the least this ratio is a different sort of cultural element, though it is the largest
element, than throwing virgins to the volcanoes, on the surface. After all, the choices
seem so drastically different. And one is ancient and one so current. But both use
"force." Only in degree are they different, and so then even our attitude to our
paradigm of culture also lies along a left -- right continuum.
| CHAPTER 6 |
| Jim Hlavac |
The Socialist Era
| Poltics, Theory & Economics |
