However, this case does not justify subsidising a sitcom.

Disagree. I have never been pregnant so I have never needed obstetric services. No have I ever required an organ transplant. However I don’t begrudge a share of our taxes going to help people who do need these services.

“For example, Radio-Canada (a francophone television network) is funded by the government. I don’t care for television, but it’s popular enough, though far less than its private counterpart, TVA. This goes to show that a private network can indeed provide these services, and apparently, in a way that is better linked to the wants of people (and let’s not speak of the popularity of US-based television shows).”

Again, disagree. Australia has a similar organisation, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, http://abc.net.au, which runs 2 TV channels, 7 sound networks (2 of which are web streaming only), an extensive web site, but its content, especially in the case of radio, is quite different from anything provided by commercial broadcasters.

To equate the two kinds of service is like saying in the US that because there is Fox News you don’t need National Public Radio, although its audience is eight times that of Fox.

Interestingly NPR is not government funded, but it is not provided by a commercial enterprise either. (In 2003 Ray Kroc’s widow gave an endowment of $200 million, the largest gift ever to a US cultural institution. This has given it a degree of financial stability.)

“Agricultural subsidies are well-supported, in some countries the mix between Church and State is encouraged by the people, but the popularity of policies can not, in itself, serve as a justification.”

Popularity is often an important element of justification, but it needs to be balanced against collateral harm that the policy might cause. Agricultural subsidies are popular among US the farmers who receive them. They are also popular among US congressmen and senators who receive large campaign donations from subsidy recipients, but they are not popular among farmers in Mexico and elsewhere who have been driven off the land by subsidised US products that are priced lower than farmers’ cost of production.

A new crisis was subsequently created when the US introduced a subsidy for corn-based ethanol, causing the price of corn to skyrocket on world markets.

And if there was a referendum asking US taxpayers whether they wanted $20 billion a year of government money to go mainly to a few hundred farmers, I’m not sure there would be overwhelming support.

Interesting article on subsidies at http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=315

Good article also on US health system reform at http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

For example, Radio-Canada (a francophone television network) is funded by the government. I don’t care for television, but it’s popular enough, though far less than its private counterpart, TVA. This goes to show that a private network can indeed provide these services, and apparently, in a way that is better linked to the wants of people (and let’s not speak of the popularity of US-based television shows). And even if this meant that the television industry should collapse: are sitcoms, talkshows, reality TV and dramas — typical, trashy television — a fair reason to redistribute wealth? I believe not. I believe that some things are, but certainly not for television, which is mere entertainment, often said to be one of capitalism’s most crass forms of entertainment. We might as well subsidise circus’ (no offense intended towards clowns).

This said, you are right that we live, after all, in a democracy, but it is good to keep in mind that we live in a liberal democracy — a certain balance between individual rights and majority rights was intended –. In this case, people in Quebec are asking for the federal government to subsidise art (not that I’m happy to consider television “art”). I don’t see how that’s a federal matter, but the lobby is indeed strong and central government feels that if it taxes money to give back to us, that we will feel more “dependent” on them and thus maintain Canadian unity.

But I’m getting sidetracked: do you believe that democracy is necessarily right, because it seems that you are using “democracy” not just to explain why these policies exist, but to justify them. Agricultural subsidies are well-supported, in some countries the mix between Church and State is encouraged by the people, but the popularity of policies can not, in itself, serve as a justification. We need to look at the economics of agricultural subsidies, we need to look at those individuals who want no part of a Church/State mix.

Relativism is comfortable and it is even necessary for personal comfort, due to the fact that things are not always as we think they should be, but I believe that it hampers one’s motivation to find truth; we must look not just at what is popular, but at what is right, and though these, to a large extent, will match, they will not always do so.

Thanks!

In contrast to that mean-spirited parsimony, it budgeted to lavish a huge $10 million on films, http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.ca/budget/2007-2008/index_en.asp

Hmm.

A good government will take some account of the various wishes of its citizens in deciding how its money should be spent. In a democracy, if the citizens are sufficiently disenchanted with how government does this, it will vote those politicians out and elect some more.

The opera-lovers’ lobby is small but vocal in Australia and I dare say the same is true in Quebec. Making a big effort to attract government attention and government funds is not unreasonable as long as the process is transparent and it is not carried too far.

The mood in the English-speaking world, and indeed stretching to nations as remote from world financial centres as Iceland, http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland200904, has been over the past couple of decades that if governments got out of the way, the market will take care of everything – whether it be an adequate supply of music CDs, poetry or Guinness.

The current financial crisis, while neither Australia nor Canada is as severely affected as many other countries, is a direct consequence of belief in the power of markets.

So there are occasions when the markets fail to provide adequately for needs. There is virtually no service that government *must* provide although there are many services that, if government does not provide them directly, it must engage firms on its terms to do that.

The US health care system is an example of what happens if health care is left primarily to employers and health insurance companies without governments taking an active role.

Whether a government decides to inject money into the market for opera or for movies; for art galleries or orchestras; to subsidise poets or subsidise farmers: that shapes the kind of society that that state becomes.

There are no grounds for saying that it is wrong for a government to put money into any of these, apart from the fact that many citizens think that it is a good idea. What you can say is that your personal preference would be that it subsidises none of them. If enough of your fellow citizens agree with you, eventually your government will get the message, and stop.

In the 18th century France was considered the centre of the arts. As Napoleon disparagingly remarked of the British, “L’Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers”.

It would be ironic if in the 21st century, Quebec discontinued all funding and government encouragement for the arts, leaving the province’s inhabitants, standing out from the rest of Canada, as “a society of shopkeepers*.