Subsidizing the Fine Arts

In his essay, "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen", Bastiat in part argues against the subsidizing of the fine arts. Using a classic "broken window" fallacy argument, he states that the government is not "creating" any weath by holding the arts intact. True, the industry may need the subsidies, but at best the government is re-locating capital that could have been spent elsewhere. The government cannot, in his opinion, create. It can only shift. Now, is this shifting ethical? Advocates of subsidies argue that the fine arts deserve subsidies because they are at least as good as other professions, and contribute equally to society. Yet to give them a subsidy requires taking money from a different private industry. Does this not mean inherently that the arts are being placed in a standing not equal to, but above, the other industries which it receives from?

The novel insight from this piece is that an argument for the abolishment of subsidies is actually a more humanistic argument than an argument for the continuation of subsidies. The first is predicated on the belief that human nature will determine the best way to keep theater and the fine arts alive, and will do so accordingly with no need for government intervention. The second is founded on the idea that the fine arts is an eternally sick patient, constantly needing life support from the government to survive since no private venture may survive in that particular field. Is this not an immediate admission that it cannot be a profitable investment? Worse, this belief relies on a distrust of human faculty, which it believes will never support the arts. This is fundamentally cynical, and even if true, who is to say that the arts deserve artificial support if the public are disinterested? Are they a better industry than others, or should we just save all of them indiscriminately? The failures of logic in the minds of Bastiat's adversaries are large, and so central that their weakness tears down the very fabric of their argument.

Even if the arts do eventually dry out, it is because we have, extremely unfortunately in my opinion, decided that they are not worth it, In this case there would be little point trying to keep the sector afloat. This does not mean that they are forever lost, but it would certainly be a great tragedy. However, this is a subjective opinion, and as such I recognize that I cannot force my values on others. Because of this, and it is a painful decision, I side with Bastiat's opinion that the arts should no longer be subsidized.

Key Points:
1. Being against subsidies does not mean being against the sector being subsidized. In Bastiat's opinion, it instead implies a fundamental belief in the industry and humanity.

2. Subsidies do not create wealth or boost the economy.

3. No industry can be given a standing above any other.

4. Sympathies should not equal subsidies.

5. Ignorance of those who pay for the subsidy does not negate their existence.

Questions:
1. Would the arts survive without subsidies? Bastiat is right to argue that the arts should not receive subsidies, but it is a different argument whether or not they would survive.

2. How can subjective value be turned into objective value? What if the subsidy is low cost, but the cultural value added to society is high?

3. Can a non-material benefit to society be accurately quantified? Should it be?